Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NORFOLK ESTUARY BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next at Seven o'clock.

PRESTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

SAINT GEORGE HANOVER SQUARE BURIAL GROUND BILL (By order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Tax Allowances (Dependent Relatives)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence is required by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to prove the existence of dependent relatives abroad for whom United Kingdom Income Tax allowances are claimed.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Green): This varies with the allowance claimed. For wives and children marriage and birth certificates are normally called for. Where it is not practicable to insist on such certificates, alternative evidence such as an affidavit sworn by the dependant before a local magistrate is required; and a similar test would normally be applied for other dependent relatives abroad.

Mr. Ridley: Is my hon. Friend aware that some immigrants seem to have an inordinate number of dependent relatives still living abroad and that some solicitors who swear affidavits may not be of such impeccable standards when

they live abroad rather than here? Will my hon. Friend urge the Chancellor to look into this matter from the point of view that some immigrants seem to be paying no tax at all due to this cause?

Mr. Green: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Inland Revenue has considerably strengthened its defences against unreasonable claims in recent years.

Bank Notes (Security in Transit)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what decision has now been reached regarding the desirability of defacing bank notes, due for destruction, before they are sent to London for pulping.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Reginald Maudling): This matter, and the whole problem of the security of bank notes in transit, is under continuous examination by those concerned.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would my right hon. Friend ask the Bank of England or the committee dealing with it to deal with the matter quickly because millions of used banknotes are coming back by train each week to London? There is a simple machine which can be used by provincial banks for defacing them, and in view of the two robberies last year in Aylesbury and Cardiff of over £2½ million, should not this machine be brought into use quickly?

Mr. Maudling: I will certainly call that to the attention of those concerned.

Civil Servants (Industrial Training)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, following the proposals in the Industrial Training Bill, what new steps he is taking to ensure that all industrial civil servants under 18 receive both day release and suitable industrial training.

Mr. Green: Day release is already an integral past of the training of apprentices who are about two-thirds of the total of young people in Government industrial establishments, and Departments are progressively recruiting more apprentices. Other young people are given suitable industrial training and are encouraged to continue their education by day release up to and sometimes beyond 18.

Mr. Boyden: What steps are being taken about the one-third—the unskilled and semi-skilled workers—so that they will attend day release up to the age of 18 and will thus get much better training than they are now getting in some quarters of the Civil Service?

Mr. Green: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Government Departments are concerned and do their level best. We take the view that often better results are got by persuasion than by compulsion; and persuasion is certainly being used.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Financial Secretary satisfied that there are enough establishments giving day release training to make this completely operative throughout the country?

Mr. Green: I would require notice of that question.

Speculative Gains Tax

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the yield of the speculative gains tax for the year 1962–63.

Mr. Green: Figures should be available in about a year.

Mr. Ridley: Is the Financial Secretary aware that that is a long time to wait for the results of this very important tax? Is he further aware that in some quarters in the City it is now beginning to be realised that this tax has been of advantage to the speculator, who can write off his losses against the payment of tax under this head? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to look very closely at it again in the coming Budget?

Mr. Green: I can certainly promise continuous examination of this and all forms of taxation, but, in response to the earlier part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I am afraid that this is the way in which the system works.

Mr. Callaghan: Is not the real position that the tax results in no revenue and that it does not diminish in any way the number of speculative transactions? Will he not now agree that it was a sham that should never have been introduced in the first place?

Mr. Green: I can only advise the hon. Gentleman not to speculate in advance of knowledge of the facts.

Mr. Callaghan: Will he tell us, since the Treasury must have collected some revenue already, how much has been collected?

Mr. Green: That is not the Question on the Order Paper. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to study the Order Paper before asking supplementary questions.

Schedule A

Mr. Wade: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total number of demands for Schedule A Income Tax that have been sent out for the current year.

Mr. Green: About 3¾ million.

Mr. Wade: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that considerable confusion and concern have been caused by the receipt of demands for Schedule A, even though in some cases they have been accompanied by an explanatory memorandum? In the hope of clearing up this confusion, may I ask two simple questions? First, is it true that in the current tax year the owner-occupier of freehold premises no part of which is let has no liability to any Schedule A tax, and, if so why have the demands been sent? Secondly, is it not correct that after 6th April, 1964, no one will be liable to any Schedule A tax and that after that date Schedule A tax will be finally abolished?

Mr. Green: If demands have been incorrectly sent, that is quite wrong and apologies will be made in any such cases. I should like to know of any such case, and perhaps I may have details of it. In response to the second question, perhaps I can best help the hon. Gentleman by referring him to my right hon. Friend's statement of 3rd April, 1963, column 457–8 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. If he remains in doubt, having read that original source of information, perhaps he will communicate with me.

Mr. Stratton Mills: When letters are written to the collectors of taxes on matters arising out of demands for Schedule A, will my hon. Friend encourage them to reply to such correspondence?

Mr. Green: So far as I know, they do, but again, if my hon. Friend has any case in mind, I am sure that I can be of help to him if only he will tell me what it is.

Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that owner-occupiers in Scotland who pay feu duty will continue to pay Schedule A tax?

Mr. Green: The position after this year will be that the owner-occupier paying either ground duty or feu duty will pay the full amount of that ground rent or feu duty, without deduction of tax, to the ground landlord who, in his turn, will be responsible for any tax that properly falls upon it.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it not also the case that the person who pays the ground rent will not be able to regard it as a charge on his income next year and, to that extent, will be worse off than he has been so far?

Mr. Green: Rent has never been regarded in the light in which the hon. Gentleman is apparently now suggesting it should be regarded. It is a perfectly proper expense incurred by people on whom it falls to pay it, and there are no grounds for thinking differently now.

Educational Services (Costs)

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for transferring part of the present cost of the educational services borne by local authorithes to the national Exchequer.

Mr. Maudling: None, Sir.

Mr. Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, because of the massive and welcome increase in educational expenditure, the effect on the rating system is becoming more and more disproportionate? Does he not agree that eventually much more of the cost of education must, in all conscience, be borne at the centre?

Mr. Maudling: As my hon. Friend knows, we have decided to undertake a comprehensive review of central and local government financial relationships, and I do not think that I should anticipate the result of that review.

Taxpayers (Representations to Members)

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will cause instructions to be issued to local inspectors of taxes that taxpayers who have referred their problems and grievances to their Member of Parliament for investigation are not for that reason to be subjected to discourtesy or obstructiveness in their dealings with local officials of the Department of Inland Revenue.

Mr. Green: No, Sir. Inspectors of taxes and their staff have standing instructions to help taxpayers in every reasonable way, and I see no justification for the allegation that is implied in my hon. Friend's Question.

Mr. Iremonger: As my hon. Friend has been good enough to say that he sees no justification for the allegation, may I refer him to correspondence which I had occasion to have with his predecessor and in which there is given a very clear example of this sort of thing?

Mr. Green: I understand that my predecessor, now my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, sent a full reply to my hon. Friend explaining that no discourtesy was intended.

Public Service Pensioners Council

Mr. John Hall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what replies he has given to the proposals he has received from the Public Service Pensioners Council for the adjustment of pensions at 1st January, 1964.

Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary saw a deputation from the Council on 26th November. He said that he saw no grounds for a further increase in public service pensions so soon after the considerable increases in the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1962.

Mr. Hall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that when public service pensions were fixed it was intended to entitle the pensioners to a certain standard of living on retirement? Would he not also agree that pensioners are not able to exercise the same pressures as other sections of the community to


safeguard themselves against changes in the value of money? Therefore, should there not be some formula which would keep the purchasing power of the pension in real terms without the necessity each time to introduce pensions increase legislation which hon. Members on both sides of the House believe to be an outdated procedure?

Mr. Maudling: I doubt whether an automatic formula of that kind would be for the benefit of the pensioners in the long run. Successive pensions increase Measures have provided for the pensioners concerned in a very reasonable way.

Mr. Houghton: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave an assurance to the House, in response to considerable pressure from both sides when the Pensions (Increase) Bill was going through the House last year, that he would try to find a better way of adjusting public service pensions than having sporadic ad hoc pensions increase legislation? Has he anything to say about that?

Mr. Maudling: What my right hon. Friend discussed with the deputation was the subject of adjustments in the near future. The point I was making was that he said in reply that the latest increases were so recent that a further immediate increase was not in his view justified.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the difficulties of getting Service widows' pensions adjusted is that so many public service pensioners are on a standard of pension which is derisory and that it is not so much new pensions increase legislation that is required as that the older pensioners should be brought up to a standard at which percentage increases would make sense?

Mr. Maudling: That seems to raise the very broad question of parity and goes rather beyond the original Question.

Liquor Sales (Clubs and Staff Associations)

Sir J. Duncan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue he is losing in tax from licensees through

the large extension of clubs, staff associations and other such bodies, who get liquor either on the premises or off materially cheaper than if they had to buy it through the normal trade channels.

Mr. Maudling: None, Sir.

Sir J. Duncan: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come when he ought to look again at the provision which allows staff associations, clubs, town councils and local authorities generally to evade the ordinary provisions of the law and to get alcoholic liquor, particularly at Christmas and the New Year, much more cheaply than trade prices?

Mr. Maudling: That question goes rather beyond my responsibility. The Question put to me was concerned with the revenue and I can only say that we suffer no loss of revenue by these arrangements. Whether for other reasons they are good or bad is a question for my right hon. Friend.

Sir J. Duncan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue he estimates he is losing from the sales of liquor by registered clubs to nonmembers.

Mr. Maudling: None, Sir.

Sir J. Duncan: What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to see that these clubs and others do not sell to non-members? Is he aware that the Customs and Excise is in close contact with the police so that cases like this can be followed up and prosecuted?

Mr. Maudling: I understand my hon. Friend's point. Once again I can answer only for the revenue and say that it does not lose by this. The enforcement of the rules about sales to non-members is a matter for my right hon. Friend, and I will call his attention to what has been said.

Sir J. Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these questions were prompted by some members of the licensed trade, a very respectable body of people, whose books are checked by the Customs and Excise and who are subject to very strict licensing laws and who resent other people coming in and taking a large amount of their profit,


which results in my right hon. Friend losing Income Tax which he would otherwise collect?

Mr. Maudling: I see the point. The position is that I am responsible for safeguarding the revenue white responsibility for the enforcement of the law rests with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I will call his attention to my hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. Marsh: Would it not be illogical for the Government to interfere in this practice when their policy in respect of resale price maintenance will mean its extension?

Mr. Maudling: That seems a subtle supplementary question which hardly arises from the original Question.

Exchequer Accounts (Reform)

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to prepare and present his Budget on the lines of Command Paper No. 2014 of 1963, The Reform of the Exchequer Accounts.

Mr. Maudling: My intention is that the Financial Statement this year should be in the same form as in previous years. But I hope to indicate in the course of my Budget statement the lines on which I think we can best make further progress in revising the form of the Exchequer Accounts and dealing with related matters.

Mr. Iremonger: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he try to bring out this year the financing requirement, which is, from the economic point of view, the only vital piece of information that we need to know?

Mr. Maudling: I will certainly try to do that. This is not an easy problem to solve. The difficulty is to give the House as guardian of the public purse the necessary financial information and at the same time to give the House and the public the necessary economic picture.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act he must introduce his Budget by 4th May? May we take it that that is his intention?

Mr. Maudling: That seems to me to arise on a later Question.

Dog Licences

Sir M. Stoddart-Scott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many dogs are licensed in the United Kingdom; what income he receives from their licences; and what is the cost of collecting this tax.

Mr. Green: In 1962–63, 2,598,488 dogs were licensed in England and Wales and 194,418 in Scotland. In Northern Ireland dog licensing is the responsibility of the Government of Northern Ireland. Only the yield of licences issued in Scotland is paid into the Exchequer: in 1962–63 this yield was £72,855. To produce figures showing the cost of collecting dog licences would require a disproportionate amount of work.

Sir M. Stoddart-Scott: Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, when he prepares his Budget, he will look at this licensing tax and whether he will deal with it in the same way as he dealt with licensing for the sale of tobacco in his last Budget?

Mr. Green: I will pass that message on to my right hon. Friend.

H.M. Stationery Office (Sales Centres)

Mr. Milne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the sales at each of Her Majesty's Stationery Office centres in Great Britain for 1963, and the comparative figures for the preceding 12 months.

Mr. Green: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Milne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing these figures. Will he note that Newcastle-upon-Tyne will not be included in this list and that his reply to me on 3rd December about setting up a stationery office in Newcastle was slightly misleading in that retail sales to the public are not made in Newcastle? Will he look into this matter and ensure that we have a branch of Her Majesty's Stationery Office in Newcastle which includes sales to the public?

Mr. Green: All I can say is—and hope that I am repeating what I said


to the hon. Gentleman on the last occasion—that the door is not closed to such an establishment if the work would appear to justify it. I assure the hon. Gentleman that this matter is under constant review.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my hon. Friend also think of putting among those figures the reduction in the value of sales which may take place next year if resale price maintenance on the production of Her Majesty's Stationery Office is abolished?

Mr. Green: I think I had better not enter into a double guessing game at Question Time.

Following is the information:


Government Bookshops
Total Sales



1962
1963




£
£


London
…
1,167,373
1,277,869


Edinburgh
…
82,580
110,986


Cardiff
…
29,148
35,864


Manchester
…
106,238
127,619


Birmingham
…
40,320
52,161


Bristol
…
33,020
38,872


Total
…
£1,458,679
£1,643,371

These figures include mail order and trade business, most of which is conducted from London.

West Germany (British Troops)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his recent talks with the Federal German Minister of Finance on the cost of stationing British troops in West Germany.

Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury visited Bonn on 3rd December, 1963, for discussions with the Federal German Minister of Finance, Dr. Dahlgrün, about the implementation of the Agreed Minute of 6th June, 1962, on this subject. At the same time he stressed the need for new arrangements regarding the foreign exchange costs of British forces in Germany, when the period covered by the Agreed Minute ends on 31st March, 1964. Both sides hoped that it would be possible to find solutions to all outstanding problems.
I have arranged for a copy of the communiqué issued after these talks to be placed in the Library. German and British officials will meet in London in the near future for further discussions on the implementation of the Agreed Minute, and Dr. Dahlgrün has been invited to visit London in March to continue his discussions with the Chief Secretary.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it time that we tried to come to a firm and permanent understanding about these costs? Does not he think it rather humiliating that representatives of Her Majesty's Government should constantly have to go cap in hand and beg the Germans to observe their part of the agreement? If we cannot afford to keep these troops in Germany and the Germans refuse to make the contribution which they have promised, will the right hon. Gentleman think in terms of reducing the numbers of troops?

Mr. Maudling: This procedure is working out well. I do not accept the suggestion that we are constantly going cap in hand to Germany. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has been to Germany and Dr. Dahlgrün has been invited to visit London. This is the way that these things should be worked out between Governments.

Sir C. Osborne: How much is it costing us to keep our troops in Germany? Since this cost must obviously put an added strain on our balance of payments position, under what condition may we expect, one day, the troops to be brought home?

Mr. Maudling: As I said in my Answer, the German Government have given us to understand that the agreed minute will be carried out by 31st March, 1964. During his recent visit Dr. Erhard undertook that his Government would give the subject of what happens after that their urgent and sympathetic consideration.

Retirement Pensions (Taxation)

Dr. Alan Glyn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate has been made of the loss of revenue if retirement pensioners, over the age of


70, received their pension without deduction of tax, irrespective of other sources of income which they may have.

Mr. Green: National Insurance retirement pensions are paid in full without deduction of tax, but they must be taken into account as part of the recipient's income in computing his tax liability, if any. The cost of exempting such pensions paid to people over 70 who have other income might be about £10 million a year.

Dr. Glyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Would not he agree that some of these sums which have to be recovered from pensioners over 70 years of age are very small and that the administrative costs of collecting them are high? Will he ask his right hon. Friend tae Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider putting this measure in his Budget, although I realise that it is a departure from normal taxation principles?

Mr. Green: Because these pensions are a form of income, like other pensions, I cannot see sufficient ground to single them out for special exemption.

Rucksacks (Tax)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current Purchase Tax yield on rucksacks.

Mr. Maudling: I regret that there is no separate information about the yield of tax from rucksacks.

Mr. Boyden: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this tax with a view to removing it in the next Budget? Is is not absurd that the Ministry of Education spends large sums of money on encouraging young people to take part in open-air activities and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes the money back from them when they pursue these activities?

Mr. Maudling: I cannot speculate on what the Budget may or may not contain, but I will consider what the hon. Member has said.

Lorries (Licences)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the yield of the licences for heavy lorries

of 10 tons burden and over for the last financial year.

Mr. Green: Precise figures are not available. An estimate of the yield from these vehicles based on a survey indicates an annual revenue of approximately £600,000.

Mr. Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us doubt whether these vehicles are making a full contribution towards the cost of the wear and tear that they cause to the roads, particularly in view of the problem which their proliferation is causing to the railways and the constant loss to the Revenue?

Mr. Green: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I think that it is very difficult to establish with any equity or accuracy what rates of licence duty for different classes of vehicle would precisely reflect the road costs for which each is responsible. This is a real difficulty.

Mr. Jay: Can the hon. Member say when last there was an increase in this rate of duty?

Mr. Green: I cannot offhand, but I will write to the right hon. Gentleman about it.

Soft Drinks (Tax)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the yield on the tax on soft drinks during the present financial year.

Mr. Maudling: The Budget estimate for the current financial year included £15 million in respect of purchase tax on soft drinks. Receipts to 31st December, 1963, amounted to about £10½ million.

Mr. Digby: I realise that this is a substantial contribution to the Revenue, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this tax is causing a great problem for many small drinks manufacturers who provide useful employment in small towns?

Mr. Maudling: I have had representations from bodies representing this industry, and I am considering them, but clearly I cannot comment on them at this moment.

Bus Fuel Oil (Tax)

Mr. Doig: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now reduce the fuel tax for public service buses to the same amount as for other industries and diesel trains, namely twopence per gallon.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the emphasis laid in the Buchanan Report on making public transport relatively cheap, he will consider, when preparing his Budget, reducing the 300 per cent. tax on bus fuel oil.

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give favourable consideration to the request for a reduction of the 300 per cent. tax on bus fuel oil from the Grimsby and Cleethorpes Joint Transport Committee, which is paying over £50,000 a year in tax and, though losing thousands of pounds every year, is faced with another claim for wage increases; and if he will make a statement on the letter sent to him by the hon. Member for Louth from the Committee.

Mr. Maudling: I have received a number of representations about the duty on fuel oil used in buses and I am considering them carefully, but I cannot anticipate my Budget.

Mr. Doig: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Transport and the Buchanan Report both stress the vital necessity of encouraging more people to use public transport? Is he not also aware that the Underground has now become dangerously over-crowded? Is he not further aware that this heavy tax does not help the process of encouraging people to use public transport, which is much more economical in the use of road space than private cars?

Mr. Maudling: These are arguments which are advanced by those who wish to see this tax reduced, but the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on their validity or otherwise at this time.

Mr. Allaun: While we do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to comment on their validity, does not he think that 2s. 6d. a gallon is a really extortionate and unreasonable tax? Does not he also

agree that a bus which can carry 60 passengers occupies perhaps only twice as much space as a private car and that the increase in the number of private cars is slowly bringing traffic to a halt in our main cities?

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he would not expect me to comment on the validity of these arguments and then proceeded to ask me whether I did not think they were right.

Sir C. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that £50,000 is a lot of money to take in this way from relatively small communities like Grimsby and Cleethorpes? Does not he agree that, since new housing estates are being built outside the centres of these places, and mostly young married people are going to live there, the extra cost entailed in travelling to the shops is an unreasonable burden? Will he look at this question from that point of view?

Mr. Maudling: I cannot say more than that these are really serious arguments advanced by people on a serious basis and that I will consider them. But I cannot go further than that at the moment.

Mr. Hilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people in the countryside would welcome the reduction of this tax in the rural areas, where public transport is so limited and where, by the time the Beeching proposals are implemented, the situation will be much worse? While I appreciate that he cannot tell us in advance what his Budget will contain, will he bear the rural people in mind?

Mr. Maudling: I will certainly bear them in mind, but I cannot say what the result will be.

Gymnasium Equipment (Tax)

Mr. Bence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the yield of Purchase Tax on gymnasium equipment over the last financial year.

Mr. Maudling: I regret that there is no separate information about the yield of tax on gymnasium equipment.

Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am surprised that he has not the figures, because we debated


this last year? Will not he scrap the tax altogether, since it has already been removed from a great deal of sporting equipment? Is he aware that this differentiation between various items of sports equipment is nonsense?

Mr. Maudling: I will study that point.

Developing Countries (Aid)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why economic aid from this country to developing countries amounted to £74·8 million during the first half of the current financial year, in view of the fact that the White Paper, Aid to Developing Countries, published in September, 1963, included an estimate that the total for the whole year would be within the range of £180 million to £220 million.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to increase the flow of aid to developing countries to meet the target of £180 to £220 million announced by Her Majesty's Government in the recent White Paper on Overseas Aid.

Mr. Maudling: The figure of £180 million to £220 million given in the White Paper was not a target figure but a tentative estimate of the range within which expenditure on aid might fall in 1963–64. It is too early to give a firm forecast for the year as a whole. As the White Paper (Cmnd. 2147) made clear, the timing of aid expenditure as distinguished from commitment does not rest with us, but depends largely on the rate at which the recipients spend what we give them.

Mr. Prentice: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect an increase in the second half of the current financial year? If not, is there not clearly a growing gap between what the Government intended to happen and what is actually happening? Does not this show the case for an overhaul of the aid programmes, which can only be done by having one Minister in charge instead of the present six or seven, each with a finger in the pie?

Mr. Maudling: This is not what is happening. Our commitments are on a rising curve, but the rate at which the people who receive the aid spend the

money depends upon them. I would like to see the actual expenditure of this aid closer in line with the commitment, but that rests with those who are getting the benefit.

Mr. G. R. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the second year in which this situation has arisen? Last year suggestions were made to try to prevent recurrence of the situation. Is the Treasury following up those suggestions in order to try to ensure that aid not absorbed is transferable to other purposes? Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the estimate in the White Paper was so greatly in excess of what is likely to happen?

Mr. Maudling: We are doing our duty by offering people aid. It is growing, and has grown in recent years, very much. I should be very glad to see the rate of spending of this money more in line with the rate at which we offer it, but it does not rest entirely with us.

Mr. P. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that Government aid is not the only way of helping developing countries and that private enterprise can help, provided that political and economic conditions are right? In these circumstances also, is not Britain playing her full part?

Mr. Maudling: I entirely agree.

Coast Preventive Men (Motor Vehicles)

Mr. T. W. Jones: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for coast preventive men to have light vans instead of motorcycles.

Mr. Green: Trials to establish the relative merits of light cars and motorcycles for use on patrols by coast preventive men have already been arranged. I will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as they have been completed.

Dairy Farmers

Mr. Webster: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will refer the income of dairy farmers to the National Incomes Commission.

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir.

Mr. Webster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the last five years the average dairy farmer's income has gone down 14 per cent. whereas his average unavoidable costs have risen by 30 per cent.? Would it not be a good thing to consider for a change an industry whose income has gone down?

Mr. Maudling: That sounds like the opening shots at the Farm Price Review.

Strike Pay (Tax)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that men on strike receive strike pay of up to £20 per week; and to what extent such payments are liable to Income Tax.

Mr. Green: Strike pay received by members of trade unions is not liable to Income Tax, but I think that my hon. Friend is possibly exaggerating the level of such pay.

Sir C. Osborne: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Sunday Times two weeks ago it was stated that the men on strike at Port Talbot were receiving £20 a week? Is it not unjust that such pay should be free of tax when it is practically double what an agricultural worker gets for a full week's work?

Mr. Green: With respect, I do not think that the figure of £20 has very much to do with the level of strike pay received. It is possible that my hon. Friend and I are differing about the meaning of a word here.

Mr. Callaghan: Whatever the level of strike pay, would it be right to tax it if the original contributions to the union remained untaxed? In other words, should not an allowance be made for the original contribution if it was intended to tax the product of it?

Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman has his tax principles right on this occasion.

Sir C. Osborne: Is my hon. Friend aware that agricultural workers earn about half this sum and will regard it as unjust if they have to pay tax on their earnings while strike pay on this scale is free of tax?

Mr. Green: I do not think that I can help my hon. Friend any further at this moment. If he would care to talk to

me about the principle upon which these taxes are raised or are not raised, I shall be glad to have a word with him.

Mr. J. Morris: Will not the Financial Secretary agree that the statement by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) is a gross exaggeration of the case at Port Talbot and that he should have some responsibility for what he is saying? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the strike pay is nearer £2 10s. than £20?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Ministers have to answer for lots of things, but not about the responsibilities of hon. Members behind them.

Armament Expenditure

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of his objective of reducing armament expenditure, why Her Majesty's Government forecast an increase of £265 million per year in such expenditure by 1967–68.

Mr. Maudling: This figure, like all the others in the White Paper, is an approximate calculation of the prospective level of expenditure in 1967–68 on the basis of present policies and programmes; it does not represent a Government decision to spend this sum in that year.

Mr. Allaun: Why cannot the Government cut the arms burden as America and Russia are doing and as the Prime Minister is continually stating that they will do? Why at least cannot they freeze the present level instead of increasing it by £100 million a year? Are the demands of the military sacrosanct for so-called defence?

Mr. Maudling: The demands of national defence are sacrosanct, which is not the same thing as the demands of the military. It is difficult to calculate ahead expenditure on defence. We all hope that there may be opportunities for reductions of armaments but on the other hand, as we have seen in the last few months, there are dangers of unforeseen increases. We think it right in working out the pattern of Government expenditure a few years ahead to assume that the proportion taken by defence will be about the same as at present.

Mr. Awbery: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what economic theory he has been studying, whether it is Marshall or Marx, by which he can promise a reduction in his Budget and then proceed to increase the amount by £235 million? Are we to understand that in future when the Government say that there is to be a reduction there will be an increase, and when they say there is to be an increase there will be a reduction?

Mr. Maudling: I think that the hon. Gentleman is a little confused. That question should be addressed to his hon. Friend.

Building Societies (Interest Rates)

Mr. Marsh: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to control building society interest rates charged on mortgages to house purchasers.

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir.

Mr. Marsh: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not consider that when these building societies affect, as they do, about 2½ million borrowers, with a total borrowed of about £3,000 million, and when societies as reputable as the Halifax Building Society can reduce their rates, he has some responsibility to exert some influence?

Mr. Maudling: I think that building society charges on the money they lend are determined by what they have to pay in a competitive market for what they borrow.

Mr. Marsh: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, my Question is whether the Government will accept some responsibility for some degree of control over an organisation which has this large influence on the economy of this country? If some reputable building societies can reduce their rates, why should the Building Societies Association prevent others from reducing their rates?

Mr. Maudling: I think that the word "control" is misleading. The only way to get the rates to borrowers down, compared with the rates that societies have to pay, is by providing a subsidy. If

the hon. Gentleman means a subsidy, let him say so.

Dr. Bray: If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to call into consultation people on the control of prices, wages, and profits, why should he exempt the money market on interest rates?

Mr. Maudling: I think that we are far from lacking in consultation with the people concerned in the money market. But the principle underlying this is common sense. If building societies have to pay x per cent. for the money they borrow, they have to charge a related percentage on the money they lend.

Prestwick Airport (Tax-free Zone)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the result of the consultations he has had with other Departments concerned and the local authority regarding the possible establishment of a tax-free zone at Prestwick Airport.

Mr. Maudling: The consultations are well advanced and I understand that the local authority considered the position at its council meeting last Tuesday.

Sir T. Moore: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but may I ask him whether he would agree that the very existence of a tax-free zone at the airport would be an enormous inducement to new industries to settle in the district and so relieve the general unemployment situation in the county?

Mr. Maudling: I think that it would be wrong to comment overmuch on this. Consultations have been going on and this matter has recently been considered by the local authority, but we are not sure of its present view.

Northern Ireland (Imperial Contribution)

Mr. Lee: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what machinery exists to assess the size of the Imperial contribution paid by the Government of Northern Ireland; and what factors are taken into account for the assessment.

Mr. Delargy: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the amount of


the Imperial Contribution paid to the Exchequer by the Northern Ireland Government is determined.

Mr. Green: The Joint Exchequer Board, established under Section 32 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and consisting of a representative of H.M. Treasury and a representative of the Ministry of Finance, Northern Ireland, with an independent Chairman appointed by the Crown, determines the size of the Imperial contribution each year. Section 23 of the same Act provides that they should determine a sum which they consider to be just, having regard to the relative taxable capacity of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. The Board works on the general principle that, so long as rates of taxation in Northern Ireland are the same as in the rest of the United Kingdom and expenditure on Government services is also on the same levels having regard to the special needs and circumstances of Northern Ireland, the Imperial contribution should be whatever is left over of the revenue of the Northern Ireland Government after meeting their actual and necessary expenditure.

Mr. Lee: May I ask the Minister whether he would agree that this can be used as a form of subsidy to Northern Ireland? In view of that, will he take note of the fraud case which has been heard in Northern Ireland, and at which a Committee of the Northern Ireland Government is looking but is unable to get copies of the transcript of the trial because of the lack of legislation on this issue here? Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend whether, in view of the enormous importance of this issue to us who find certain moneys for this kind of thing, he will cause legislation to be introduced so that the Committee of the Northern Ireland Government can get copies of the transcript?

Mr. Green: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that no British taxpayers' money is involved in this case. In addition, the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on a matter which is within the competence of the Northern Ireland Government.

Mr. Delargy: Can the Minister say whether the House has any control whatever over the public money which it

authorities to be spent in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Green: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Northern Ireland Government's financing of their own assistance to industry, it is done entirely out of their forms of taxation and I cannot answer for them in this House.

Mr. Delargy: I am referring to the subsidies which this Government provide to the Northern Ireland Government and the relief from taxation which is also granted in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Green: I have tried to answer the specific case as to how finance passes between this Government and the Northern Ireland Government. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have absolutely no responsibility for, and therefore no ability to answer on, the precise case that he has in mind.

Concord Project

Mr. Lee: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now make an approach to the French Minister of Finance in order to secure joint control over the financial progress of the Concord supersonic project.

Mr. Maudling: I very much doubt whether greater control over this project is attainable in this way, but I will discuss the report of the Estimates Committee containing a recommendation broadly to this effect with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation.

Mr. Lee: Is it not a fantastic situation that here we have at least £85 million worth of investment in an agreement which the Ministry of Aviation announced to the House and which the Treasury has never even thought of discussing with the French Government to see whether there should be a break clause, or whether the Treasury should be represented on the board controlling the finance of the Concord? Indeed, what will be the position if the French decide to pull out of the agreement? Is it not fantastic that a Government of this sort, which looks after the finances of the country in a way which is displeasing to the lower income group, can throw £85 million away in this kind of incompetence?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has understood the system of financial control in this country, which has existed for many years. The financial control of projects is not solely the responsibility of the Treasury—it tends to be more so in France—but rests also with the Department concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (POLICING AND SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister if he will move to appoint a Select Committee to consider policing and security arrangements for Members and their property in those parts of the Palace of Westminster appropriated to the use of Members at times when the House stands adjourned for more than one day.

The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): No, Sir. I am not aware of any dissatisfaction with the present arrangements.

Mr. Manuel: The right hon. Gentleman has not been here long enough.

Mr. Lipton: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that this Question arises from the theft of an hon. Member's car from the inner precincts of the Palace of Westminster at a time when the Lord Great Chamberlain is supposed to be responsible for the security of Members' property in the Palace? Does not the Prime Minister think that the time has come for hon. Members to have some little say about their domestic arrangements for the security of their property?

The Prime Minister: I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman's car was stolen, but very glad that it was recovered later by the police. I do not think that there is general dissatisfaction in the House with the existing arrangements.

Mr. C. Pannell: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that he must be the only Member in the House—presumably because he has just come from another place—who thinks that the present arrangements are suitable? Is the Prime Minister aware that Members have business in this House both during the Recesses and during weekends, and that the present arrangements are com-

pletely unsuitable in that the authority of Mr. Speaker ceases when the House rises and that authority passes to the Lord Great Chamberlain who presumes to think that when the House is not sitting Members should not be here.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the fact that one hon. Member's car has been removed in the whole history of the House leads one to the conclusion drawn by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Pannell: But is the Prime Minister aware that this is only the last of a whole series of incidents which have caused a great deal of irritation, and that even custodians under the Lord Great Chamberlain have been known to address crowds of sightseers and indicate that Members of Parliament have no right to be here on Saturday mornings? Is the Prime Minister also aware that Members have put up with insolence in many respects and that there is grave dissatisfaction which has been registered through the Serjeant at Arms and Mr. Speaker from time to time? Will the Prime Minister make some inquiries about this?

The Prime Minister: If there is the general dissatisfaction which the hon. Gentleman says there is, I hope that he will make representations either to me or to the Leader of the House, but I am not satisfied at the present that there is general dissatisfaction with the arrangements.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS

Mr. Swingler: asked the Prime Minister what consultations Her Majesty's Government have had on migration with Commonwealth Governments since the passing of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act; at what level these consultations have taken place; with which Commonwealth Governments they were held; and what have been the results.

The Prime Minister: As I made clear in my reply to the hon. Member on 14th January, there is constant consultation with other Commonwealth Governments on the operation of our immigration control. Such consultation takes place at Ministerial or official level,


whichever is appropriate in the circumstances. Details of Commonwealth consultations are confidential.

Mr. Swingler: Is it the Prime Minister's view that these consultations are designed to work out a Commonwealth policy on migration, or is it his view—as it is the Home Secretary's view—that each Commonwealth country should decide unilaterally its policy on migration? What is the Government's policy on this matter?

The Prime Minister: The Government's policy is that we have to decide what this country can afford in the way of immigration from the outside Commonwealth. That is our Government's decision, but on the details of the matter we are in constant consultation with Commonwealth Governments.

Mr. Renton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unexpectedly large numbers of people, possessing no special skills—many of whom are unable to speak English—have been entering in the past 12 months from India and Pakistan? Will he confer with the Governments of those two countries with a view to the administrative procedures being improved at their end?

The Prime Minister: This is exactly the kind of question about which we consult.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Prime Minister trying to work out, through these consultations, a policy on migration within the Commonwealth, or is he resigned to the fact that no such policy is possible, and that, therefore, each country must operate its own system?

The Prime Minister: We have tried very hard—I have tried for five years—to come to a voluntary arrangement with Commonwealth countries to limit immigration into this country. Clearly we cannot allow it to go on beyond a point at which this country can absorb it. That voluntary effort failed, and we now have to decide what we can take in consultation with all the Commonwealth countries concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICAN AFFAIRS

Mr Ginsburg: asked the Prime Minister what machinery exists for co-ordinating intelligence information about

East African affairs between the Foreign Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office in London and East Africa; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: All three Departments take part in the co-ordination of intelligence about East Africa. In East Africa, Tanganyika, Uganda, Zanzibar and Kenya are fully independent countries and, as such, are responsible for their own intelligence and security.

Mr. Ginsburg: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is some concern about the co-ordination of intelligence? Can he say whether there was any intelligence failure in recent events—any failure to pass on information? Would he care to comment on the reply of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations last Thursday, to the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux), that we had no prior knowledge about the mutinies?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I should like to comment on any part of that supplementary question.

Mr. H. Wilson: When the right hon. Gentleman said, on American television, that it was all a Communist plot, was this derived from his own intelligence sources, or had he got it from the intelligence sources of the self-governing Commonwealth countries concerned?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be a little more accurate. What I said was that these simultaneous subversive movements and attempts at coups in all four places could not really be a coincidence. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman followed me so closely on television. He may recollect that I went on, in answer to a question whether this could be pinned on the Communist Party, to say that I did not propose to answer that question.

Mr. Wilson: Since I did not have the advantage of seeing the right hon. Gentleman on television, but recall his answer in the House last Thursday—[Interruption.] I do not have access to American television. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: Calls of "Order" which do not come from me probably will not assist. I am sure that the House wants to make better progress with Questions. It had better not make so much noise.

Mr. Wilson: Since I do not have access to American television but am able to read the British Press reports of it, and since the right hon. Gentleman reaffirmed it last Thursday and was again on the same theme in Bury last night, will he tell us—since this is so deeply ingrained in his thinking about East Africa—why he did not think of mentioning it in his statement to lsvestia last Saturday?

The Prime Minister: My statement to lsvestia dealt with rather different points. It dealt with Anglo-Russian relations and our desire to get on better terms with the Soviet Union. I have never said—and surely the right hon. Gentleman would be very foolish to believe—that Communist countries will give up their attempts at subversion in Africa and elsewhere.

Sir J. Eden: In the light of what has recently taken place in East Africa, can my right hon. Friend at least assure the House that there are some lessons to be learned, and that both the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Foreign Office should critically examine their own procedures and organisation, and intelligence services?

Oral Answers to Questions — ZANZIBAR, TANGANYIKA AND UGANDA

Sir J. Eden: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the threat to British Colonies resulting from the recent events in Zanzibar, Tanganyika and Uganda, he will take the initiative in proposing a regional security pact, to which all countries concerned with the maintenance of freedom and order in the continent of Africa would be invited to be party; and if he will seek to convene a special conference of these countries, with a view to adopting collective measures to combat Communist subversion in the area.

The Prime Minister: Following recent events in East Africa we shall naturally

be in consultation with the Governments concerned. Any future steps to strengthen the security of the area must depend on what they themselves want.

Sir J. Eden: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any request has come from these countries in Africa for some form of consultation of this kind? Does not he agree at it is very much in the interests, both of ourselves in the West and of the African countries, that we should co-ordinate our endeavours as far as possible to guard against subversion?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations hopes to meet the Ministers of these countries quite shortly, and we shall be discussing with them all these subjects.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH DEFENCE FORCE

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will propose to other Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth the establishment of a Commonwealth defence force to deal with emergencies in Commonwealth territories when so requested by the Commonwealth Government concerned.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that it would be practically or politically feasible to have a single defence force representative of the whole Commonwealth to act rapidly in an emergency. But Britain already has special defence links of various kinds with all Commonwealth countries. Canada is a fellow-member with us in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and in the Far East a Commonwealth Strategic Reserve of land, sea and air forces from Britain, Australia and New Zealand has been constituted since 1955.
The British Government would welcome joint defence arrangements between Commonwealth Governments in other regions of the world, and would be glad to consider participation in them where this was the wish of the Commonwealth Governments concerned.

Mr. Wyatt: Would it not be a good idea to try to get even token representations from other Commonwealth countries


when these emergency actions have to be undertaken, so that any charge of neocolonialism will have much less validity and we might be able to establish a set of principles stating in what circumstances we intervene in the affairs of other Commonwealth countries?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Member, but I think that this is better organised on a regional basis than in the form which he suggests, of a token Commonwealth force.

Mr. P. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Simonstown base agreement is of supreme importance to Commonwealth defence and that we should do nothing to prevent the South African Government from arming itself for self-defence purposes?

The Prime Minister: That is a wider subject. The Question deals with a Commonwealth defence force.

Mr. Grimond: Would the agreements to which the Prime Minister referred earlier, in answer to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt),—with and between various Commonwealth countries—cover the type of action taken recently, which is internal action in a particular Commonwealth country?

The Prime Minister: This is a situation with which we have not been faced before in the Commonwealth. The arrangements which we have with other Commonwealth countries by and large deal with external aggression.

Oral Answers to Questions — SALMON POACHING

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination that exists between the Scottish Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the measures necessary to curb salmon poaching; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Measures to curb salmon poaching are primarily a matter for the river boards in England and the district boards in Scotland to administer under the terms of the relevant statutes with the assistance of the police where necessary. I am satisfied that there is full co-ordination between the Departments when the need arises.

Mr. Wyatt: Does not the Prime Minister remember that when he was last in this House, while the Foreign Secretary was modernising the Tory Party, he was making 36 vigorous interventions demanding increased penalties for salmon poachers in Scotland, and he was so successful that now the penalties for salmon poachers in Scotland are much more severe than in England? As it is a subject which he really understands and about which he feels very strongly, does not he think that he ought to redress the balance as between England and Scotland?

The Prime Minister: I am certainly willing to consider this sympathetically, as the closer English legislation gets to the Scottish model the better I am pleased.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that the one subject on which we regard him as an authority is salmon fishing? Is he aware that the last time he was in the House he wanted landlords to have the opportunity to arrest poachers themselves?

The Prime Minister: Whenever I answer a Question I am successful in getting a rise out of the hon. Gentleman.

BILLS PRESENTED

INCOME TAX MANAGEMENT

Bill to amend the law relating to General Commissioners for the purposes of the income tax and their clerks and officers of Inland Revenue; to transfer from the General or other Commissioners to officers of Inland Revenue the powers of assessing income tax and related functions; to transfer from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to inspectors of taxes the powers of assessing the profits tax; to make further provision as respects the jurisdiction of Special Commissioners and General Commissioners in appeals and other proceedings relating to income tax and the profits tax; to make further provision as respects such proceedings in Northern Ireland; to make further provision for the recovery of income tax or the profits tax charged by an assessment before the determination of an appeal against the assessment and in other cases; and to re-enact with consequential and minor amendments


provisions of the Income Tax Acts concerning returns of income and the procedure on claims for relief from tax, and to make other minor amendments in the administrative provisions of those Acts, of the enactments relating to the profits tax and of other enactments relating to inland revenue, presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. Brooke, Mr. Noble, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Alan Green; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

WAR DAMAGE

Bill to make provision for expediting the completion of payments under the War Damage Act 1943, the War Damage (Public Utility Undertaking, &c.) Act 1949 and the War Damage (Clearance Payments) Act 1960; to dissolve the War Damage Commission and transfer to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, or, in the case of payments under section 71 of the said Act of 1943, to the Minister of Transport or the Secretary of State, the functions of the War Damage Commission and any functions which remain to be performed under those Acts by the Board of Trade; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. Brooke, Mr. Heath, Mr. Ernest Marples, Mr. Noble, and Mr. Alan Green; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

EVICTIONS FROM RENTED DWELLINGS

3.32 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to compel a landlord to obtain an order of the court before proceeding to evict a tenant; to provide that the court shall suspend the operation of such an order until satisfied that alternative accommodation is available; and for purposes connected therewith.
I hope that my proposed Bill will achieve three things. First, that it will put an end to what is now generally recognised as a barbaric and out-dated custom, that of putting out on to the pavement people who have been evicted from their homes, a practice which ought to disappear from any civilised country. Secondly, that it will bring immense relief and encouragement to practising solicitors who often find themselves in a very embarrassing situation with regard to their clients when they are facing the sort of tragic situation which has been all too common in recent years. Thirdly, that it will bring some sense and meaning into the figures for homelessness.
At present, such figures are no more than totals of people who have been put into the street; they were not born there. They have been evicted and put out. We would like, surely, to see the implementation of what was the original intention in preparing statistics of homelessness, to be able to make assessments of the number of problem families and not of problem landlords, and cut the flooding of welfare authorities with families with no internal problems and who ought not to be in overcrowded circumstances, and properly provide for the rehabilitation of families with internal troubles.
The Bill would abolish the uncertain and disagreeable aspects of the use by private bailiffs of the particular kind of trickery which has to be used to do violence on a home but not on a person in order to secure the possession of a dwelling and to lock it against those who have dwelt therein. I do not think that any reputable landlord, solicitor or any other person would not be glad to see that disappear. It would make the eviction of a tenant dependent on the order of a court and provide, further,


that the order should not be operative until the court was satisfied that alternative accommodation was available.
As I see it, that would mean that the registrar of the court had made previous inquiries from all the parties concerned, including welfare authorities, and was able to report to the judge at what date alternative accommodation which could be occupied and paid for by a family would be available, or, in extreme cases of problem families, the provision by the welfare authorities of suitable accommodation. The order would be suspended until such accommodation became available.
I am well aware that were the House willing to give permission for it to be brought in, the Bill would have to be short and clearly understood, and have practical effect within the present state of the law. By limiting it to this point I hope that I shall get agreement from all quarters. For those who have doubts, perhaps I may just go over what I think would happen if, after inquiries of the parties concerned, a registrar came to the conclusion that the case was a recalcitrant and difficult one.
It might be a case where, because a family were bad tenants, or had fallen behind with the rent, or because there was a broken home in some respect or other, the landlord—whether a local authority housing management committee or a private landlord—would be entitled to be relieved of the duty of being a welfare officer as well; and the family would be properly put in the care of an organisation which, after all, was set up by Parliament to do that, in the case of families needing retraining in making the money go round, in learning to cook and to pay debts regularly, and so on. Such families are, of course, a very small proportion of those who become homeless at present. But it is a type which the provisions of the Bill would have to cover and which a judge would have to consider when considering the report of the registrar.
If I may give examples of the sort of thing which is still happening in my constituency and the way in which the Bill would work my argument will be complete. In areas such as I represent we have a continuous problem of evic-
tions threats of eviction and homelessness. Firms spring up which, by a coincidence, happen to be dealing with properties which were notorious in the last few years. A firm called General Freeholds Ltd. seems to manage a large number of these addresses on behalf of Wamsgain Property Company Ltd. At present, the firm works within the law and if it were able to work within the framework of the law as strengthened by the provisions in my proposed Bill the tenants would not be afraid of eviction, a fear which overshadows any reasonable negotiations.
The most complicated situation in part of Paddington exists over an estate which was sold by the Church Commissioners, sold by Lintang and then sold by auction, where there are leases of different durations still in existence, and where elderly people are being offered sums of money to surrender their leases or new leases for longer terms. It is a subject of immense complexity, needing expert advice. It is not right that they should be afraid of negotiating on equal terms because of the fear of eviction.
That is the least important example. Then I have the very moving example of a family of a man, his wife and five children living in a basement and paying a not unreasonable rent by modern controlled standards. The house was sold over their heads to an investment company, which promptly gave them notice to get them out so as to sell with vacant possession. The mother was a pleasant soul, doing her best to cope with the circumstances of herself and five children and with a sick husband in hospital. An attempt was made to serve a writ on the man while he lay in a hospital bed. That could have been terrible in its effect on the family.
This case caused me and the solicitor a good deal of anxiety. The solicitor wrote to me one day and said, "I find that the senior partner in the firm which has been acting on behalf of the landlords is a Mr. X, a Conservative M.P. Do you know him?" I know him and I think that his opinion of me is lower than my opinion of him. I shall not name him for the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I shall make that clear, and perhaps the hon. Members


will be surprised. I thought that I must write to him and I did so, setting out very briefly indeed the facts of the case. The following morning as I came to the House to go to a Standing Committee, he was waiting for me. He had been on to the junior partner, as this was a case which he knew nothing about.
This is the sort of thing which normally goes through the managing clerk's department. The writ was served by a writ-serving agency, which would never have been instructed to go to a hospital if any responsible person had been in charge of the operation. The investment company had bought this house by accident, as it were. It was buying an estate which contained one compact block of property and this one extra house of which it said, "Clear out the uncontrolled Tenants and sell".
That is why I do not name the hon. Member concerned. I would normally name him, but I do not think that the secretary of the Law Society would favour a commercial "plug" of that kind in a speech on a Ten Minutes Rule Bill. The rapid action to mitigate the circumstances was entirely commendable. This kind of thing ought not to happen simply because hon. Members meet one another here, or because someone knows someone else in another firm. It ought not to happen at all. The managing clerk should say to the client who gives the instruction, "This will take some time,

because we shall have to make arrangements with the registrar at the county court before we serve any writs".
I have told the story at length because I do not think that one should come to the House with a Bill every time that one detects a wicked man doing wicked business. Through the chain of events one cannot put one's finger on a single villainous action by anyone, but the facts would be just as tragic as if the whole thing were intentional, thoughtless and brutal. That is why I hope that my Bill, short, clear and acceptable as I believe it is to public opinion and to the whole legal profession, will also be acceptable to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Parkin, Mr. Silkin, Mr. A. Evans, Mr. J. Silverman, Mr. Pavitt, Mr. Frank Allaun, and Mr. Carmichael.

EVICTIONS FROM RENTED DWELLINGS

Bill to compel a landlord to obtain an order of the court before proceeding to evict a tenant; to provide that the court shall suspend the operation of such an order until satisfied that alternative accommodation is available; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th February, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. William Yates: For a few moments this afternoon I wish to speak on the Third Reading of the Bill and, in particular, to make reference to the sum of £40 million part of which, as one can find in Votes 3 and 6, is to be used for the Federation Army in South-West Arabia and also for internal security and special measures under Class III (6) for internal security in Aden.
I realise that this day is to be devoted to the Opposition's business, but I should not like a sum of this nature to be passed unless I had, first, an undertaking from the Minister about the spending of this money in South-West Arabia and some enlightenment about it. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that part of the money might be used in detention centres and also in looking after the prison services.
A year ago I and other hon. Members spoke to him about the condition of Aden Prison. Before I agree to allowing the Bill to pass I want an assurance from him. He and the Colonial Secretary know that in that prison, built about 1809, in one compound, there are lunatics, prisoners, women and also boys, who are treated as if they were pack hounds.
In the central part of the prison one can find women barred up. This is the most terrible gaol, for which this country is responsible. I would like to have an undertaking from my hon. Friend that at least the lunatics will be taken away from where the prisoners are. There is no room for women prisoners in the gaol. I ask what authority was given to use the chapel to house a woman prisoner. Was it because there was no room in the prison for women, or because the women's part of the prison was so terrible that she could not be sent there? These are such serious matters that I must ask the Minister

for an assurance before I agree to the passing of the Bill.
I spoke to my hon. Friend privately about it a year or more ago. He knows that this prison is a standing disgrace. It is all very well for the Opposition to say that it was more of a credit in their time, but this prison in Aden condemns our name and in the last century it would have brought mortification to our country. I am not surprised that the United Nations authorities were not asked to visit the area of Aden.
The Minister promised a year ago that a special place would be built for the lunatics so that they would not run around throwing filth among all the other prisoners. I ask him to review the case of every prisoner and of every person detained in Aden against whom no charge is made, wherever he may be detained, and where Government money is used to detain him which comes out of these funds. I must ask him, in the name of human decency, that this matter of Aden Prison be put right. Until he says so I shall endeavour to obstruct the Bill as long as I can.

Sir Peter Agnew: Would my hon. Friend make this clear to the House? Is he suggesting that the detainees—those detained after the recent bomb outrage—are confined in the civil prison of which he has just spoken?

Mr. Yates: May I point out, first, that those who are waiting to be repatriated or sent back to another country are confined there, and, secondly, that the lady detainee, Miss Radia Anasallah, was imprisoned in the chapel and that because we were visiting there she was moved into the hospital. The other detainees are detained outside, but wherever people are detained without trial somebody in this House must stand up and ask that they be tried or a case brought. The hon. Member did not visit the gaol during his visit, but if he was satisfied with it perhaps he would tell the House?

3.53 p.m.

The Under Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Nigel Fisher): Subject to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the scope of this debate does not properly permit me to answer the matter


raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) in detail. I am sorry to detain the House at all when I know that hon. Members wish to get on with the main business of the day.
Of course, I respond to my hon. Friend's invitation to look again at the conditions in Aden Prison. I think that in the present context they are not entirely relevant because the detainees under the state of emergency have not been detained in the prison, which is admittedly somewhat overcrowded and old-fashioned. That is why they were moved elsewhere. This prison is shortly to be replaced, so my hon. Friend's points are a little academic, but I shall certainly look into them with great care and particularly at the case of the Lady in the chapel, which I have heard about for the first time this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE (HOUSEHOLD DELIVERY SERVICE)

3.55 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: I beg to move,
That this House, registering its disapproval of any debasing of the public services and institutions by allowing them to be used for the dissemination of political propaganda and other highly contentious matter, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the Post Office, in any new distribution service, shall follow the standards already observed in these matters by British Railways, the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority.
This matter has had a variety of treatment in the House and outside, but it seems to some of us to be a very important issue that we ought to treat with some care. I think that the difference between the view of some of us about this turns on one issue: whether the undertaking by the Post Office of the business of door-to-door distribution of open circulars is merely an extension of the postal service or something of a totally different order.
Those who take the view that the Post Office is engaging in a different branch of its ordinary business will, presumably, feel that there is not a lot to argue about. I do not see it in that way. It seems to me that the difference between dealing with Her Majesty's mail in the ordinary

way—receiving packets, letters, postcards—is a totally different undertaking, different in degree and different in time, from distributing widespread door-to-door open circulars of the kind that we know are being offered to the Post Office.
Nor do I feel that what might be done under this service is in any way to be compared, as the Liberal Party seems to compare it in its Amendment, with the ordinary political material that might be distributed by the Post Office in the ordinary way—the sort of free distribution that all parties get at General Election time or the sending of anything in its appropriate envelope with the full postage paid on it.
I do not think that there is any comparison between the two. The only comparison is that both involve the use of a letter box. Beyond that it does not seem to me that there is any comparison.
It is because the distribution of Her Majesty's mail is a special and responsible operation, involving questions of security and responsibility, that the postman is regarded as a civil servant of responsibility security-wise, and he must be worthwhile. He has a status as a civil servant and his political activities have always been carefully regulated. In addition, like firemen and policemen, his terms of employment are different from those which are normally accepted by or imposed on ordinary workers in the State. None of these issues would apply to the door-to-door distributors of an open circular, because they do not need that kind of dignity, responsibility, skill, security or limitation on the freedom of a person. It is from that basis that we start to examine what is involved in the Postmaster-General's proposal, but something else arises from it.
We do not think that it follows that something that can go through the ordinary process of the distribution of Her Majesty's mail can necessarily be distributed by the Post Office by means of this door-to-door service that it now seeks to render. Postal matter delivered by the ordinary means may infringe some regulations, but that does not show itself openly to those handling it or to those who see them handling it. It is, for the most part, enveloped stuff. That means that the offensiveness of material that may or may not get past the Postmaster-General's regulations when


posted in the ordinary way is neither so apparent, because of that, nor so offensive, as it would be if distributed openly and unaddressed from door to door. Things that it would be perfectly proper to send through the mail become improper when distributed indiscriminately in this way.
People have said during the debate outside that has gone on that this is not so. The Postmaster-General himself once said that one cannot discriminate between users of the mail, but the right hon. Gentleman himself has knocked that argument on the head. He proposes—as he has to, as a responsible and sensible man—to discriminate in the service as he does not discriminate in regard to the ordinary mail—

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): indicated dissent.

Mr. Brown: The Postmaster-General shakes his head, but we have on record what he said last week.
I am rather shocked if he does not intend to discriminate. When the scheme was launched it was made clear that postal packets that are obscene, indecent, or grossly offensive, or which advocate racial discrimination, are to be prohibited. The Postmaster-General said that he was arranging for that prohibition by issuing instructions to head postmasters, making it
… perfectly clear that we shall not accept for this service items which will give offence to the public at large"—
let the House note the words—
and we cite specifically circulars advocating racial discrimination."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1964; Vol. 688, c. 368.]
The leaflet, Household Delivery Service, that the Post Office has issued to would be users of this service does not use those words at all.
We read in page 8:
The Post Office can accept for delivery only those items which are eligible for transmission by inland post.
That appears to include all items except those detailed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Section 11(1) of the Post Office Act, 1953. The House will probably not wish me to read through all of those items, but nowhere in that Section is racial discrimination mentioned.
In fact, I understand that the Postmaster-General has instructed local postmasters to exercise their judgment about what is to be regarded as too offensive to be distributed by this service in a sense that will enable them to exclude anything inciting to racial hatred. Those instructions do not exist in regard to ordinary inland mail. They are not contained in the Post Office Act, under which the Postmaster-General is operating. They are not issued in Supplement No. 5, issued in January of this year, to the Post Office Guide.
The Postmaster-General has, therefore, not accepted that anything that can go through the inland mail can necessarily go through this service. He has accepted that one has to be very much more careful with this open distribution service, and must lay down much tighter limits to what may be carried. That makes nonsense of the Amendment that the right hon. Gentleman is presumably shortly to move, which refers to respecting
… the same principle of freedom of communications in the household delivery service …
The right hon. Gentleman proposes nothing of the sort. I welcome the fact that he is issuing much tougher instructions, and is especially drawing to the attention of postmasters his wish that they should regard circulars advocating racial discrimination as being excluded. It may be that he has instructed them to exclude something else; I believe that he intends to exclude another form of literature which he does not think should be issued. If that is so, I applaud him, but, in so doing, he is accepting that there is a difference between this service and the ordinary inland mail.
It therefore seems to us that the discussion is not, as it has been put in some newspapers, whether in this distribution service our mails shall be free from censorship. It is clearly being censored. The issue is: what shall be censored, and by whom? The right hon. Gentleman proposes to make the local postmasters responsible for a very wide measure of censorship. He is giving them considerable discretion as to what they shall shut out and, presumably, anything that they regard as being offensive to the public at large will be shut out.
The only narrow argument the right hon. Gentleman has had with us is whether or not leaflets advocating political policies should be regarded as offensive to the public at large. It appears that he is giving the postmasters enough discretion to leave out many other things, but he is digging in his heels against ruling that political leaflets can be regarded as offensive.
Lots of things are offensive to the public at large—it is not only racial hatred that needs to be picked out for that dubious honour. I have just been reminded that in a large part of the county of the Quorn, anti-bloodsport leaflets might be found offensive. In an area in which Roman Catholics live in numbers, many of them would find family planning leaflets generally offensive. A whole range of things could be regarded as generally offensive.
If postmasters are to have this wide discretion, we must have it clearly from the Postmaster-General that they have it, and can use it, as widely as that. But then I must point out that leaflets that attack the principle of public service and distributed by public servants are highly offensive to many of those public servants, and to a large number of other people. There is no reason for saying that no one can be offended by a political leaflet attacking things in which he believes, and many people may be offended by literature attacking things in which they believe.
Since the Postmaster-General has accepted that there must be discrimination and censorship, it would be far better to write into the regulations that this House sees—not merely into the private regulations that the right hon. Gentleman issues to his postmasters—what is to be regarded as censorable and inadmissible, and we want political propaganda to be included. Our Motion is, therefore, directed to arranging that the Government shall set out in regulations approved by the House what the limits are on the new service; and shall be instructed to include a ban on the distribution through this service of political literature.
I will come in a moment to the merits of our case in that connection, but, first, I want to look at the background, since, in a way, it may be part of the

Postmaster-General's answer to our case that doing what we propose will so limit the service that it will not achieve what he wants, which is to find new money and a new field of operations for the Post Office. Part of the background to our case is that to do what the Postmaster-General wants would inevitably debase the standards that have so far operated in Her Majesty's Post Office.
The major Post Office case for this to be done at all is, "We require the additional money. Here is a service that private agencies presently perform, and which earns money for them. By that token, it could earn money for the Post Office, and we should be willing to go in and get that money." How far is this true? The question was examined by the Economist a few weeks ago. No doubt, hon. Members will have seen what was said. In the year 1962–63, the Post Office, had a profit of about £12 million on its telecommunications side, a deficit on minor services such as registered letters, printed papers, and samples of £1½ million, and a profit on letters alone of £9 million.
I understand that the estimated deficit overall for this year is about £4 million. But the estimated earnings from this new service are about £300,000. As the Economist says in its comment, the service has obviously been very cautiously costed to show a slight margin, but to show a slight margin just at the time when such experience as we can gain from what has happened in other countries shows that this is not at all a very profitable service. In fact, most other countries which have operated it have found it an increasingly unprofitable service.
One thing we do not know is how much literature which now goes through the post in the ordinary way will be attracted to the new, cheaper form of service. Obviously, the Postmaster-General cannot make a greater profit out of performing at a lower rate a service which he is already performing at a higher rate. It was interesting to hear him say last week that there cannot be anything against doing at a lower rate something which one is already doing. It all depends. There is a lot to be said against doing it at a lower


rate, (a) if the market will stand the existing rate, and (b) if one will not make very much out of doing it anyway.
On his own figures regarding printed papers and samples, it looks very much as though this would be exactly the kind of material likely to be attracted to the cheaper service, and he is losing money on it now. On the financial side, therefore, even if the right hon. Gentleman were right, the maximum which he could claim would be that he could turn a £4 million loss into a £3,700,000 loss. If it turned out that he had not made enough allowance for the traffic moving from one service to the other, he might not even make that marginal difference to his total loss, although, in aiming to make this highly speculative and marginal difference, he would be undertaking a whole range of risks, to which I shall refer in a few minutes.
The right hon. Gentleman's statement last week contained a collection of half-truths. There was the half-truth of his reference to our late colleague Mr. Will Williams, which gave such a distorted impression of what Mr. Williams actually said as to amount almost to a non-truth. One of the other half-truths was his reference to other countries. He left the House with the impression that there were several other countries which had experimented with and were running the service. He did not tell us that there was a tremendous outcry in America about the effect of "junk" mail—to use the American name—on the ordinary services and a good deal of satisfaction about what was happening, that the Swiss, who had operated this service, had gone back on their decision and given it up, and that the Germans, who also had the service, had found it so unprofitable that they had given it up. All that would have been relevant to what the right hon. Gentleman said about what other countries were doing.

Mr. Bevins: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that at no time in its history has the United States operated this system and that in Switzerland the system is still operated in most parts of the country.

Mr. Brown: My information about Switzerland is that it is being given up. We can check it during the course of

the afternoon. What I said about Germany is certainly true. While it is true that not exactly this system is operated in America, there is a system of delivering what is known as "junk" mail at very low rates, and there is a tremendous campaign to get rid of it because of the depressing effect it has on the ordinary services rendered by the postal department.
This brings me to my next point. The House ought to know more than it knows already about what the effect of operating the service, for its highly disputable marginal return, will be upon the ordinary service of the Post Office. We have had no evidence yet from the Postmaster-General of the examination which he says has been made. Already, public opinion of the services rendered by his Department is not as high as it used to be, and there is a great deal of anxiety in the country lest, by taking on this extra work, even though he proposes to have it done in the afternoons, he will, because of its very size and extent, interfere with the delivery of ordinary mail the next morning or at other times. Undoubtedly, we must know a great deal more about it before we can think of accepting what the right hon. Gentleman has proposed.
My own view as a layman, for what it is worth, is that we cannot expect the Post Office to undertake this new service, if it grows to any size at all, without forcing a clash with the normal services which the Department ought to render. It is bound to reduce to some extent revenue from the ordinary postal services. It is certain to lead to greater friction within the Post Office between the Postmaster-General and the postal staffs.
It is important briefly to examine this last point. It is not sufficient to say that postmen cannot expect to censor what they deliver and then imagine that that finishes any examination of the postman's case. I accept that postmen cannot expect to be the arbiters of the things which they are asked to deliver. I accept that and I urge it upon the postmen. But, leaving aside the point I made just now about the Postmaster-General himself putting the duty of censorship on some postmen, the local head postmasters or their deputies, there is a much deeper issue.
Postmen, as I said earlier, are civil servants. One of the consequences of that status is they accept obligations which other workers do not. One of these obligations is a liability to work overtime when the exigencies of the service require them to do so. Can one imagine what will happen if men are ordered to work overtime not to distribute the ordinary mail, not to do their normal work for the service, but to go out delivering from door to door leaflets to which they object? What they might be expected to do, uncomplaining, in the ordinary hours of duty is one thing. It seems to me that one cannot expect to order men to do this sort of thing in overtime without, at the same time, expecting that there may be friction in consequence.
There is bound to be difficulty. Inevitably, there will be awkward cases. Almost certainly, there will be men who will say, "I am not going to be ordered to do this. I do not believe that my obligation to accept compulsory overtime applies to this." Then, no doubt, postmasters will try to get out of the difficulty by giving the new service precedence over the ordinary mail delivery service, keeping the overtime for something which it is easier, they think, to instruct men to do during overtime. There will be a combination of industrial friction in the Post Office and interference with the normal services people expect from the Department.
I now have the result of inquiries which we have made into the situation in Switzerland. We do not know whether there are any cantons operating it, but the Swiss dropped it as a federal service in 1962.

Mr. Bevins: indicated dissent.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman can refer to it again in his speech and tell us which cantons he relies on for his statement. There is, therefore, more to this than the question of whether the postman should be the arbiter of what he delivers. There is the fact that a service which has accepted obligations for a particular reason will now, apparently, rely on those compulsory obligations to try to get this totally different service carried out.
I am told that relations in the Post Office between the staff and the Postmaster-General

are already a good deal lower in the régime of the right hon. Gentleman than they have been for a long time. Had I been a senior Minister who had been asked to consider the request from the Postmaster-General to introduce such a service as this, I would have been bound to oppose it on all general grounds, including that of his own relations with his staff.
Of course, we must not resist change where change is suggested. I have heard arguments—and, no doubt, they will be used by the Minister—that the fact that one resists change suggests that one is reactionary. This sounds to me very much like a parallel in politics to the argument about the numerality in the Church, where modern divines seem almost unwilling to agree on the existence of God in case they are accused of being too traditionalist. All our traditions have to go to show that we are "with it".
I do not accept this approach. I am all for change where change can be shown to be good and where it can be shown to be not merely destructive of our standards. But the change in question seems to me to be offensive, because it does not have all that good to be claimed for it, and it will certainly destroy—"debase" is the word that we use—markedly the traditional standards that have applied in this service. It will make a vast departure from the view that the Government were taking until quite recently in the matter of these standards.
When the question of what came to be known as the "sticky label" issue arose in 1958, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), is recorded in HANSARD of 12th November of that year as commenting in these terms. He set out to show that nothing seriously had gone wrong. He said that an official had given a list of names to a body which wanted to distribute political propaganda. He told us that that official had acted unwisely, that he had been indiscreet and that he had been formally reprimanded for doing that.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, however, that
… no one in the public service made any official facilities available with the conscious purpose of assisting the distribution of this


pamphlet."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1958; Vol. 595, c. 400.]
The right hon. Gentleman argued that the public service had not made available any facilities for the distribution of a contentious political leaflet and that, therefore, it was not as serious a matter as we had made out.
Now, however, under the new Prime Minister, the Postmaster-General says, "We will now make all the public service facilities available for distributing any contentious political leaflets. We will give you the household list which we have compiled. Give us the contentious literature and we will distribute it for you." That is a total reversal of the principle that the former Prime Minister laid down only five years ago. By their own standards, the Government are clearly debasing—I would say destroying—what only such a short while ago they obviously thought was an important issue.
I now come to the merits of our widened exclusions, as they would be if our Motion were carried. Any hon. Members on the Government side, or on this side of the House, who feel, contrary to my feelings, that, nevertheless, there is a case for this new distribution service, may still have their new distribution service even if our Motion is carried. I feel that there is a strong case against the new service for the reasons which I have given. If, however, people want to try it out, if the Postmaster-General wants to do so, if it is felt that there is money to be earned, we have not on a doctrinaire objection or deeply-held conscientious objection stopped the idea of this new service. We have merely tried to establish the limits within which it should work.
I hope that what I say about those limits will, therefore, be acceptable to those who disagree with me on the main issue as well as to those who might agree with me on that issue. We are trying to say that there should be a restriction not only on the things that the Postmaster-General has mentioned, but on other highly contentious matter and, in particular, on political propaganda. It is inevitable that everybody gets his attention stuck on the political issue, because that has been the first contentious issue to arise and it is proper that we should

concentrate a lot of attention on the political issue.
The deliberate employment of public servants, uniformed for clearer identification, openly to disseminate political propaganda is a novelty upon which the country should not embark without a great deal of consideration. It is totally novel in our constitutional practice. It is quite contrary to anything that we have ever done and I believe that it would have been rejected by any Government other than the present one. Even the present Government would be well advised to consider whether they ought to disregard the age-old tradition that we do not employ public servants in that way.
Let it not be imagined, however, that political propaganda is the only issue involved. All kinds of other highly contentious and controversial matter might be distributed under this service unless the Postmaster-General turns every head-postmaster into a wide-ranging censoring official. The Post Office—the public service—will find itself inevitably involved in great issues of controversy.
I have mentioned the possibility of birth control or family planning leaflets. A uniformed public servant being paid by the State to put into somebody's letter box or hand a leaflet on birth control or family planning would be a controversial issue in a Roman Catholic household. If that is done by a woman or a man employed for the purpose as a street canvasser, it is an issue between the recipient and that person. The moment that it is done by a uniformed public servant, it involves the State, as the employer of that public servant, in the controversy about which somebody feels strongly.

Sir Kenneth Thompson: The right hon. Gentleman knows that this is done now, every day, on practically every one of the subjects which he is talking about, except that in today's circumstances there is an address on the front of the envelope. Nevertheless, a State-paid and uniformed public servant does precisely what the right hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Brown: I disagree; I dealt with that at the beginning. There is no similarity between delivering it in an envelope in the ordinary way of the mail


and delivering it openly through one's letter box. There is all the difference in the world. If the hon. Member does not agree, that is a difference between us. I should feel totally differently about getting a leaflet of that degree of controversy in an envelope sent to me and finding a postman coming up and handing it to me or to a member of my family openly as a piece of controversial literature. There is a great deal of difference between the two things.

Mr. Arthur Tiley: For many years, it has been common practice of the Post Office to deliver postcards, which all can read, on all sorts of topics, addressed merely to the occupier of the house.

Mr. Brown: Drawing the line is extremely difficult concerning the ordinary mail, but that is no reason for taking the line away altogether and throwing in everything.
It is one thing for the Postmaster-General to say that he finds it difficult even to control things now. It is quite another thing to say that he will literally invite everybody to give him all their controversial literature and that he will go out of his way to deliver the lot without any cover or protection. That seems to me to be a total non sequitur as an argument and I do not follow its point at all.
There may be all sorts of things other than pamphlets about birth control. If Fanny Hill wins her appeal, and is held not to be obscene, leaflets can be handed out by uniformed postmen advocating that we buy the book, with some nice little passages from it telling us that it would be good for us to have it. This may be a highly controversial issue even if the court decides that the book is not obscene. Do we think that uniformed public servants should be placed in the position of having to deliver these things?
The fact that a private firm can do it, or does it, is no reason for saying that therefore the State should do it. We have to observe some different standards. I repeat that there is no way of preventing this happening unless the Postmaster-General is prepared to tell his head postmasters that they are free to so use and interpret the words "offensive to the public" as to cover anything they find offensive.

Mr. Norman Dodds: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week, in my constituency, a letter was addressed to a Miss E. W. So-and-So, who is only 15 years of age, which contained a statement offering her tablets and contraceptives to prevent her having children? The argument and controversy is against the firm which sent it, but if the postman had put it through the door under this scheme the trades council and everybody would have been against the Post Office for having knowingly put it through the letter box.

Mr. Brown: I know that a case has arisen and that this can happen in the form of an ordinary letter. I do not like that at all, but I regard that as being in one category. I regard an invitation to send for these things by means of an official of the State openly distributing the literature to be in a different category and a much worse crime altogether. We should put a limit to what can happen, provided the money is available and the leaflet or material can get by the local head postmaster's definition of what is racial, obscene and generally offensive. I am not prepared to allow that to be the position. I am not prepared to allow the local head postmaster to have this wide discretion.
It is inevitable that the postman will be embarrassed and offended. Do not let us take too lightly this offending or embarrassing of the postman. As we know, he is a man of considerable dignity and status. We do not gain much from forcing him into an embarrassing position unless there are reasons of high State policy for it. The postman is not the only one involved. Citizens will be embarrassed and offended, too, and the public service will inevitably be involved in a growing area of controversy from which, so far, it has been kept.
On the political side, I admit quite frankly, unless an hon. Member opposite disputes it, that for the most part it will be friends of the Conservative Party who will use this organisation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because they have more money. Others can use it, and no doubt will, but because in normal times there is greater freedom about the sort of money that can be spent on purposes which are agreeable


and convenient to the Conservative Party than there is about the money available for the things which we on this side find agreeable, this arrangement will be used more by friends of the party opposite than by my party.
My objection, however, is not based mainly on that, and I trust that the case made by hon. Members opposite is also not based mainly on it, but even if that were not so there are tremendous objections to this proposal. The Postmaster-General has said that already some of this happens and that we have political franking and slogans on the backs of envelopes. This is true. I do not know what the balance of the arguments was when it was agreed to allow that to happen, but the fact that it exists is not necessarily a case for employing public officials to distribute political propaganda widespread.
This new practice is quite clearly an involvement of the public official in political controversy. The moment he goes round from door to door distributing the leaflets he is involved in the argument. In the past, Britain has always leaned backwards—some say too far backwards—to keep the Civil Service of all grades above any suspicion of being politically involved in this way. I do not find it easy to see where the line can ever again be drawn once civil servants are not only allowed to distribute these things, but are required to do so as part of their duty. I do not see what other barriers could ever be erected.
Those hon. Members who represent county constituencies know the situation in small village communities. The Government official whom the villagers regularly see is quite an important personage. He is to them an important contact with the State machine, and to place him in a position in which in a village he is involved in this proposal is at the very mildest an embarrassing situation and at the worst is seeking to get some degree of influence into the political issue.
This is one of the reasons why, even though there are other agencies which will do this work cheaper, organisations which support the Conservative Party have switched so quickly to the Post Office. They believe that if the postman

brings the material, that little extra cachet of authority will be brought with it. This is what they believe they are getting. Whether they are getting it or not is a matter of judgment. This is why they want these things distributed by the uniformed postman rather than by a ununiformed casually recruited canvasser. A large part of my time every polling day is taken up in villages in my constituency in trying to prevent petty authority doing what it can to influence democracy in those areas.
This is clearly the reason why the Postmaster-General has decided that the service must stop when the General Election is announced. The postman, from then on, will not distribute any more political literature. The argument is that the election is then on and that the postman will be involved, but does anyone seriously maintain that an election campaign starts only three weeks before polling day? Does anyone seriously maintain that it is not on now? The only thing that the Postmaster-General is doing is to arrange that the service can continue during that period when there is no control over expenditure, and, therefore, friends of his party have the money and can spend it, and stopping the service as soon as there is control over the expenditure and all parties become equal.
We become equal, or achieve a measure of equality, only at the point at which the expenditure can be charged up against each of us as candidates. At that point, the service is stopped. Meantime, it is allowed to go on. The Postmaster-General recognises that from that point on the postmen will be involved as much as they will be in the last three weeks before the General Election.
We contend that this is not a suitable service for the Post Office to undertake. Door-to-door distribution is not suitable for the public service. We contend that this proposal will certainly interfere with the normal duties of the Post Office and will tend to disrupt them. It will almost certainly cause trouble internally in the Post Office. It will almost certainly involve the Post Office in public controversy, and it will still not make any significant contribution to the financial problems of the Post Office.
We are giving away a very great deal, destroying some very dearly held traditions and taking some very great risks for a financial return which, even on the Postmaster-General's own figures, is highly marginal and which may turn out not to be anything like as good as that. For all these reasons, it would be better not to go on with the service.
However, if the Government are determined to run this service from now almost to the General Election, however long or short that period may be, we suggest that the restrictions which we propose in our Motion are the very minimum compatible with our traditions and with the maintenance not only of actual political impartiality by the public service, but of the appearance of impartiality and the removal of any ground for suspicion. Just because it is the Government's friends who will use this service more widely, it is more incumbent on this Government than it would be on any other to be susceptible to the arguments which I have used.
Unless the Government are willing to write in the protections which we propose, they must not only be open to the suspicion that they are introducing this service for party advantage, or for what they hope will be party advantage, but also accept that this will be set alongside the Prime Minister's declaration a short time ago that from then on everything which the party opposite did would be conditioned by one thing only, namely, the forthcoming General Election.

4.43 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
approves the intention of Her Majesty's Government to respect the same principle of freedom of communications in the household delivery service as applies to the postal services generally".
I do not intend to make a long speech because, frankly, I do not think that it is necessary. After all, this is only a half-day debate and I know that several hon. Members hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, or that of Mr. Speaker.
The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) deployed his arguments with his customary vigour and I shall try to answer all those which he put forward and perhaps significantly, some

which he did not put forward. One thing which I should like to take up straight a way—and I do this in the greatest good humour—is the right hon. Gentleman's reference to a novel which, I believe, is known as "Fanny Hill". I do not know whether he has read that novel. I have not done so yet, despite its alleged literary graces, but I know that there were considerable extracts from this piece of alleged literature in almost every Sunday newspaper in our homes last Sunday.

Mr. G. Brown: Not in the ones that I read.

Mr. Bevins: When right hon. and hon. Members opposite refer to the standards observed by British Railways, I ask them to consider which nationalised industry in this country transported about 15 million of those Sunday newspapers from London to the provinces and Scotland.
Before I come to the main questions which the right hon. Member for Belper raised and which are in the minds of his hon. Friends, I think that the House is entitled to know a little about the background to this service. The right hon. Member asked me a number of questions about it. As we all know, for some years advertisers—and I use that word in its widest sense, to include retailers, contractors, societies, private businesses and public businesses—have been using agencies outside the Post Office to deliver circulars and handbills to householders on a fairly large and increasing scale. Their services being cheaper than our 2½d. printed paper rate, the Post Office has lost a lot of business in consequence.
To regain that lost business, we needed, as the Liberal Party's Amendment sensibly indicates, a new and cheaper service. This is what the new scheme provides. It makes for cheapness at both ends of the transaction—at one end by taking matter from the sender without there being an address on the envelope, or, perhaps, without an envelope at all, and at the other end, the Post Office end, by dispensing with the need for sorting at the post office.
I think that the House would like to know that this service was launched only after the study of similar services in a number of overseas countries. We came to the conclusion, I believe rightly, that


this would be a useful service which would improve Post Office finances at a time when they are sluggish. Since the cost of postal services must be paid for at the end of the day, by the public, we felt that this service, which, I believe, will be profitable, would help both the public and our postal staffs.
Our initial estimate for the first financial year is that our profit may amount to about £300,000. That, set against the background of total postal revenue, is relatively small. But I say to the right hon. Member for Belper that any Minister who has a responsibility for an industry, whether it be nationalised or whatever it is, has a responsibility to the public to do the best he can with that industry from a financial point of view.

Mr. G. Brown: There are other standards, too.

Mr. Bevins: Any notion that this service will be used mainly for political matter is, of course, quite unfounded. In the main, it will be used for commercial purposes, but it will also be used to publicise services which have essential social purposes.
For example, the Post Office has already had leaflets advertising mass radiography in various parts of the country. I have no doubt that this service will be used to promote and publicise such things as the blood donor service, road safety and other worthy causes. The idea which has been put about that most mothers and housewives object to unaddressed matter is, I believe, quite erroneous. The advertising profession knows better. It knows that most of our womenfolk welcome communications of any kind, especially when they are delivered by the friendly postmen.
The right hon. Gentleman and, last Wednesday, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), expressed fears that the start of the service might cause some worsening in our postal services and, of course, this is a serious argument which the House will want to take seriously. I assure the House at once that the introduction of the service will not lead to a deterioration of our general postal services, but right hon. and hon. Members may like

to know what part it will take in postal deliveries and how, in practice, it will fit in with them.
The present position is that we deliver about 10,000 million items a year through the postal services, and my advisers reckon that in its first year the new service will deliver about 150 million items, which represents an addition of about 1½ per cent. to our present total of deliveries. Nobody can argue that that is a substantial addition during the first year. The new service will not be allowed to interfere with our present postal services. After all, the most important delivery of the day is the first one and this is everywhere timed to start and to end at a fixed time. I want to give the House a clear assurance that in no circumstances shall we extend this delivery time to accommodate unaddressed packets and that only when the traffic is light, as it is very often during the early part of the week, will we send out the leaflets with the early morning delivery and then no more than can be delivered within the normal time. The rest we will send out on the second delivery, which is usually much lighter than the first and consists, in the main, of second-class mail. If this delivery happens to be overloaded, then we shall arrange special deliveries.
These leaflets will require very little processing in the sorting offices and, of course, hardly any transport between post offices, so that the system for getting mail from one part of the country to another will not be obstructed to any particular extent by the new service.
I have made it clear beyond any possibility of doubt to the trade union involved that I am ready at any time to discuss with it how to make this service, both financially and otherwise, more acceptable to some of its members. That offer was sincerely made and still stands. So much for the service itself.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: A postman will have to walk round a large area carrying these leaflets. What arrangements are being made to transfer them to a place near to his delivery area? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that carrying round these deliveries in all sorts of weather, coupled with the fact that they


will have to go to every house, will add a very great burden to the ordinary postmen?

Mr. Bevins: I take the point, but I do not think that what the hon. Lady says follows as a matter of course. A good deal of this unaddressed material will, by its nature, be lighter than much of the heavy printed matter which now goes through the mails. In any case, the present weight limitation on the postman's bag, which, I believe, is 35 lbs., will still apply. There will be no increase in the weight load.

Dr. Alan Glyn: What negotiations has my right hon. Friend had with the union and what has been its attitude?

Mr. Bevins: I am coming to that.
In April last year the National Executive of the Union of Post Office Workers recommended this scheme to its membership at a conference. The Executive could hardly, therefore, have thought it to be debasing—to use the expression of the right hon. Member for Belper. But the conference threw it out by a majority vote and it was then my responsibility to decide whether to abandon the service altogether or to go ahead. After an interval, I decided to introduce the service last month, by which time the attitude of the National Executive of the Union was not one of hostility, but of neutrality.
The Opposition have now chosen to make a political issue out of this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition first raised it with the Prime Minister on 23rd January, when I understand, he complained about the Aims of Industry leaflet. He alleged that it was of a party political nature and made rude remarks about him.
I have seen millions of political leaflets in my time and I must say that I have never seen anything quite as mild and inoffensive as this one. Of course it is political, but its tone is much milder than what issues nowadays both from the Conservative Central Office and Transport House. I should be surprised if the Leader of the Opposition was so thin skinned as to believe that this was offensive towards him.
Moreover, the leaflet does not refer to the Post Office or to any of the other

nationalised industries, like coal and electricity. If the party opposite, or the Fabian Society, or "Keep Left", or any other organisation wants to use the service to publicise the case for nationalisation then my hon. Friend and I will be only too delighted to accept because, of course, it will improve the financial position of the Post Office, whatever its side effects might happen to be politically.
This having been made a political issue, the House must decide it and, if it rejects the Motion—I believe that it will on the demerits of the Motion—then the service will continue. The Motion is, rather curiously, confined to the narrow question of the acceptance and delivery of political propaganda and other highly contentious matter through the post, more specifically through this new service. On page 61 of the Post Office Guide there is a list of articles prohibited from the post. They include.
Indecent or obscene communications … and packets be Bring grossly offensive, indecent or obscene words, marks or designs.
There is not, and there never has been in this country, any prohibition against political matter as such. I cannot emphasise that too strongly. Subject to the limitations within the Post Office Guide we are all free, in this House and outside it, to communicate with each other or with the whole nation about any subject, whether it be political or not, about anybody or not, through the ordinary postal service. Right hon. and hon. Members know perfectly well that communications of political content are delivered by first and second-class mail all the time.
Indeed, the two central offices are among the best customers of the G.P.O., and, as I said last week, the Labour Party itself is not prevented from putting political slogans on its envelopes. "Let's go with Labour and we'll get things done" is a perfectly acceptable slogan, partly, of course, because it does not say where we go with Labour, or what things will be done. Similarly, when the next General Election is being fought, no hon. Member, or any candidate, will be prevented from referring to himself or to his party on the envelope which includes his election address. There is no rule against printing exhortations on envelopes containing election addresses.
It so happens that we on this side of the House believe in freedom to communicate, and it would be utterly preposterous for any hon. Member to argue that the Post Office should not handle political matter at all. I know that the right hon. Gentleman did not argue that. We ought to encourage and not thwart the clash of conflicting opinions in what is the old-fashioned belief that most of our people will then come to the correct conclusion, as I am told they did at the last three elections.
If this practice is right in the case of the existing service, why should it be wrong in the case of this new service, and if so, for what reason? I am still waiting for an answer to that question.

Mr. G. Brown: rose—

Mr. Bevins: I am coming to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I do not regard that as an answer to my question.

Mr. Brown: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman why, as he does not include in his existing regulations a ban on accepting leaflets dealing with racial discrimination, he is including that prohibition in the new service?

Mr. Bevins: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my making my speech in my own way. I am not going to funk any question. I have no need to. This is too easy. If it is right in the case of existing services, why should it be wrong in the case of this new service, and if so, for what reason? I want to take this question seriously, as I am sure the House does. The Motion is a bit "cagey" about this, because it gives no reason at all. The right hon. Gentleman gave one and I shall deal with the considerations that he put before the House.
The first question with which I want to deal is this matter of the experience and practice in overseas countries, in respect of which I am sorry to say the right hon. Gentleman rather implied that I was lacking in good faith towards the House. This system operates in Belgium which, at the moment, has a Coalition Government which includes members of the Belgian Socialist Party, and they do not restrict political matter at all. In Switzerland, which is also governed by

a Coalition Government, including Left wingers, there is no prohibition on political matter from any bona fide political organisation.
It is true that in certain areas and cities of Switzerland, where there is an acute labour shortage, it has been necessary for the Administration to hive some of this traffic off to private agencies, but to the best of my knowledge the Administration itself is still in control of this service. Switzerland also has special arrangements for the delivery of leaflets during General Election campaigns, and, as the House knows, we are not going that far.
In West Germany, in the Netherlands, and in Austria political matter is accepted provided that it is not anti-constitutional. In Canada, there is no restriction at all. In Denmark, the service is widely used at election times, and there is no restriction of any kind against political material. Finally, in New Zealand, the only restriction is that political matter must not over-step the bounds of ordinary propriety, and there the service is widely used by all political parthes, as I hope it will be here. Whatever the reservations may be abroad—and the House will have seen that they are trivial—to the best of my knowledge not one country in the world bars political matter through unaddressed services of this sort.
Let us suppose, for the sake of argument that all those nine countries are misguided, that I am misguided, that the Government are misguided, that my hon. Friends are misguided—

Mr. G. Brown: That is self-evident.

Mr. Bevins: —and that only the right hon. Gentleman and some of his friends—I suspect that it is only some of them—happen to be right. They say that we ought to prohibit political matter, but nobody has ventured to explain—and I do not think that anybody will in the course of this debate—how one prohibits political matter, and how one decides to define political matter. The right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to do so. He went further and said that they would prohibit not only political material but matter of a highly contentious nature.
I did not want to raise this, because I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would not do so, and I did not want to


rub it in too hard. If we lay down that we are to prohibit matter of a highly contentious character, we are taking censorship—

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is doing it now.

Mr. Bevins: —much further than mere political censorship, and the right hon. Gentleman is asking the Post Office administration, not me, at various levels to consider whether notices or advertisements in respect of beer, or smoking, or gambling are contentious. That is taking the matter to absurd lengths.
The right hon. Gentleman made one serious point which deserves a serious answer. He suggested that the Post Office was already well on the road to censorship of the mails. That is wholly untrue. All that has happened is that in the Post Office Guide certain prohibitions have been laid down. Unlike ordinary mail, this is unaddressed mail and it may be open. All that the Post Office has done is to say that stuff that is grossly offensive shall be banned. The new service may deliver stuff that is open, and perhaps not even in an envelope. That is why the instructions say that matter relating to racial discrimination should not be allowed through this service.

Mr. Brown: That is censorship.

Mr. Bevins: It is not. It is being done in accordance with the Post Office rules, namely, that the matter is grossly offensive. That does not involve any change whatever in Post Office policy.

Mr. Brown: Is any other extension or interpretation of the words being given to the head postmaster, apart from racial discrimination? Has he been told to rule out anything else on the ground of it being offensive?

Mr. Bevins: I said last Wednesday that we had spelt out also material which would be unsuitable for children. I think that that is right, but I would not regard that as censorship in the ordinary sense of the word. In one breath the right hon. Gentleman urges me to do something, and when I take the course he urges on me he attacks me for having taken it.

Mr. Brown: That is making it too easy. What I said was that the right

hon. Gentleman was objecting to our Motion on the ground that it would involve his officers in exercising censorship. He says that he is exercising censorship over anything connected with racial discrimination, or which is offensive to children. I am pointing out that that is censorship, and the right hon. Gentleman has given away the whole case that we are urging on him.

Mr. Bevins: If the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to read what I have said—and I have chosen my words very carefully in the last five minutes—he will see that there has been no departure from existing Post Office practices in this matter.

Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this discrimination will have to be exercised by at least 2,000 postmasters throughout the country. Will he give those postmasters freedom to accept or reject whatever they deem to be offensive?

Mr. Bevins: I am sure that the hon. Member appreciates that the discretion and right to decide whether matter is grossly offensive is a responsibility which lies at the various rungs of responsibility in the Post Office at present, and is exercised by responsible servants of the Post Office every day of the week.
I come, finally, to the terms of the Motion. Significantly, it does not argue that this service should be thrown overboard. All it asks is that the Post Office should follow the standards observed by British Railways, the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. The view of the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends is that this would be right, because the Post Office, like the other three bodies, is a public body. It so happens, however, that the functions of the four bodies are totally different.
The function of the railways is to carry freight and passengers and the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. are broadcasters. The Post Office is neither of these things—thank heaven—but within the context that all four bodies are public bodies their advertising practices are very much the same, in the sense that all four prohibit certain advertising within their own houses—railways at their stations, the B.B.C. in the Radio Times, and the Post Office in telephone directories and kiosks.
But this is not what we are debating. The House is not debating advertising on railway stations or in telephone kiosks; it is debating the question of freedom of communications, which is quite a different matter—

Mr. Ross: It is not.

Mr. Bevins: —from advertisements on other people's property.
I have been trying to think of a closer parallel, and I think that a more appropriate one is not the hoardings of British Railways but the attitude of British Railways to the carrying of political propaganda. British Railways carries masses of it, in just the same way as does the G.P.O. In Liverpool, at the weekend, a friend of mine who is a political agent told me that he receives several thousands of leaflets from the Conservative Central Office. They are picked up by British Railways from a political organisation and delivered to a political organisation. There is nothing wrong with that, and what is right for one service is right for another.
I end on this note: if I were to prohibit political matter from household delivery, how could I refuse to apply the same principle to the mails in general? It just could not be done on any sensible basis.
My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury hopes to wind up this short debate, but I now repeat that my only interests in this matter are the interests of the public and of those who work for the Post Office. I am satisfied that this service will help both, and, subject to the one or two minor prohibitions which I have already mentioned, and which I am fairly sure are generally acceptable to the House, I am not—nor are the Government—willing to interfere with the principle of freedom of communications.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morris: It is probably true to say that not since the time of Postmaster-General Herbert Samuel and the Liberal Administration of 1911 has there been such a disputatious atmosphere in the Post Office as that which exists at present. If anybody needs any corroboration of that he can go into the Central

Lobby or into the Committee Rooms upstairs, where Post Office workers are assembled to make their views known on the whole subject of the Household Delivery Service.
Having said that, I should make it abundantly clear that all reasonable people—all people who genuinely have the good will and future of the British Post Office at heart—would accept the obligation of the Post Office to examine new and different services and to consider the question of areas where the Post Office might expand its services to the community. The reason why I identify myself with the Motion is that I believe that the whole introduction of the service has been mishandled.
In the interchange of questions which we heard in the House last week some of the views which were expressed were symptomatic of a somewhat strange attitude for any Postmaster-General to adopt on behalf of his Department. He said that there were two justifications for the Household Delivery Service—one, expansion and the other, profitability. He went on to make the charge that the idea of expansion had been prompted by the late Member for Openshaw—Mr. W. R. Williams. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the leader of the Union of Post Office Workers—Mr. Ron Smith—had also identified himself with this service.
On that occasion the House showed its contempt for the introduction of the name of a former Member, and the manner in which the Postmaster-General used it. But no matter how contemptuous it is to bring the name of a deceased Member into a debate in the House in order to buttress one's own argument, the point made by the Postmaster-General was that both Mr. W. R. Williams and the U.P.W. were in favour of this service. He said that they recommended the service to a conference of the U.P.W.
He was right in that, but to leave the matter on that basis was very unfortunate. If he is criticising the general secretary of the U.P.W. and also the views expressed in this House by the former Member for Openshaw, he might well criticise my views, because I was a member of the executive council of the U.P.W. at the time, and shared the corporate responsibility of that body for


the recommendation which was put to the annual congress.
Why did the union executive change its mind?—because that is what the right hon. Gentleman implied. It went to the annual conference of the U.P.W. and put the recommendation to the conference. It was considered by the conference. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the executive body of the Union of Post Office Workers should bulldoze its opinions through its annual and special conferences? Is he suggesting that the general secretary of that union ought to go to the members of the union and say, "This opinion should over-ride your opinion"? Of course not. We claim that the structure of our union is as democratic as any in the country. It is a serious matter that these charges should be made and I hope that on future occasions the Postmaster-General will not do so.
There is another important factor. When the executive council of the union assembled after the annual conference decision—a decision made by the elected representatives of the nation's postmen—and when that decision was considered, one important fact was borne in mind which the Postmaster-General has tended to overlook. Against a background of the expressed hostility of postmen, were we to engender a situation in which industrial action would have been a possibility and bearing in mind that, through the action of the Postmaster-General 18 months previously, revenue amounting to £1 million was lost?
The right hon. Gentleman talks about profitability. But 18 months before he involved the Post Office in a loss of revenue amounting to £1 million over his handling of the work-to-rule and pay negotiations. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he is interested in profitability and that £300,000 is all-important I welcome his departure from his previous point of view.
All along he has said that there are two justifications for this scheme—expansion and profitability. Why not take the same attitude regarding the giro system of Post Office cheques? Why did he resist that suggestion from the staff associations within the Post Office? That was an avenue of expansion. But because the right hon. Gentleman

meekly yielded to pressure from the joint stock banks this country is without a giro system of Post Office cheques, and the banks are introducing transfer credits.
This was from the same individual who talks about expansion and profitability. He says that we ought to have a household delivery service because it would bring in £300,000 additional finance to the Post Office. But I ask, "Will it?"
Let us examine some of the facts. He says that there is an area covered by private agencies which cater for correspondence and leaflets, within the definition of a household delivery service, to the extent of 600 million items, and he suggests that the Post Office ought to give attention to this. Even though the right hon. Gentleman succeeded in introducing his household delivery service, it would create a situation in the Post Office which would be like having Christmas every week. I say, with respect, that the right hon. Gentleman has not the physical characteristics to be a Santa Claus. Nor are there at present the resources within the Post Office which would be necessary to carry on the additional work.
The most important consideration which ought to occupy the minds of hon. Members is that raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). Last week he asked whether the introduction of the service would have a deleterious effect on first-class and second-class correspondence deliveries. The Postmaster-General quickly said that that had been considered before the scheme was suggested, and the Postmaster-General was certain that first-class correspondence would take precedence over household delivery correspondence. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will be able to substantiate that view if the service is introduced.
When will the household delivery service correspondence be delivered? It is said that it will be delivered partly by means of the night mail deliveries and during the day mail deliveries. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that postmen engaged on night mail deliveries are not fully occupied? Is he quite sure that the day mail deliveries could absorb this additional correspondence?


These are questions which he will have to answer, if not now, in the future.
He talked about the use of the mails in other countries for this type of correspondence, in Switzerland and the United States of America. Only last year, through the courtesy of the English-Speaking Union I had the privilege of visiting the United States for three months to study Post Office administration there. I went to most of the major centres and I found that, whether in New York, Washington, Boston, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco or New Orleans, the same attitude was apparent with regard to this type of correspondence.

Mr. Bevins: The hon. Gentleman must not say that. I have already said, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not contradict me, that there is no such service of this kind in the United States.

Mr. Morris: I do not wish to contradict the Postmaster-General. I will grant him that courtesy. I shall leave it to his own leaflet to contradict him.
The Postmaster-General has said that there is no household delivery service in the United States and, technically, he is right. But let us look at the definition of household delivery in the Departmental circular dealing with household delivery service. The definitions within the service indicate the same type of correspondence as that carried at a low preferential rate within the Federal Post Office service in the United States. I gather now that the right hon. Gentleman accepts my point.

Mr. Bevins: Oh, no. The hon. Gentleman must not jump to that conclusion. If he has been to the United States and seen the working of the postal service there, he will realise that one reason why the postal service in the United States is perhaps not as good as the U.S. Administration thinks it ought to be, is that it carries a very large quantity of what we call second-class mail at a very cheap rate. May I say to the hon. Gentleman, for about the third time, that here we are dealing with unaddressed, and very often unenveloped, mail.

Mr. Ross: We have started down the slippery path.

Mr. Morris: I will catalogue the type of correspondence which the right hon. Gentleman is now suggesting that the British Post Office should deal with. It is in the leaflet. It does not need defining. The Post Office leaflet says:
Leaflets, circulars, shopping guides, sales letters, sample packets, etc.
The right hon. Gentleman has defined it, not I. Those are precisely the classifications of correspondence which in the post offices of the United States are defined, in colloquial expression, as "junk" The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the British Post Office should take on "junk".
I was very impressed by a letter which appeared in the Guardian yesterday about this classification of correspondence. I accept the Postmaster-General's opinion that we have a much more efficient Post Office service than there is in the United States. The reason why the service in the United States is inefficient is that the volume of this type of mail which the right hon. Gentleman suggests he should take on is crippling normal Post Office services in that country.
I do not want to advance only my own views about the United States service. I advance the views of the writer to the Guardian yesterday. He said:
As an American in Britain for a few months, I must express the horror I feel at the thought of another country being deluged with the delivery of unaddressed mail. For the past few years this delivery has brought into American homes tooth paste, detergent, shaving lotion, perfume and literally baskets of unwanted printed matter. We have long ago ceased to enjoy more than one delivery of mail a day and perhaps we may not have even that soon, and at an increasing cost.
That is precisely the position we shall be in if we accept these proposals of the Postmaster-General.
The letter went on to say:
So loud is the din of unsought and unread circulars that the next step contemplated by those who hope to penetrate the numbed brains of the public will surely be advertising over the telephone. Those who say the mail service will be degraded by this burden are, I think, right. Many Americans would welcome, and are urging, an end to this unnecessary irritation.
If one wanted justification for the arguments we are putting forward this is one which I hope this House will accept.
I have instanced the views which the postmen of the country have expressed in the Central Lobby and in Committee rooms of this House this afternoon. People ask, "Why are the postmen concerned about the introduction of this service?'' Having worked with so many of them for so long, I know that they have a pride of craft in the service. It probably has a psychological background. When one is wearing the Queen's uniform and going about with crowns on one's lapels one does not want to be reduced to the status of a pamphlet pedlar. Yet the Postmaster-General and his department put out advertisements in which they say, "Give your mailing system the prestige of Post Office delivery". In effect we are to sell at five guineas a thousand the prestige of Post Office delivery in rural areas. Does this House accept that reasoning?
I hope that the Postmaster-General will think again, not only of the political implications but about the wider questions of the household delivery service as such. He said in his contribution today that he had indicated to the Executive Council of the Union of Post Office Workers that he is prepared to have further discussions with them. I ask, is he prepared to withdraw this household delivery service so that those discussions can proceed on a completely impartial and neutral footing?
I say in all honesty that it does him no good to interpret the statesmanlike attitude of the executive council of the Union of Post Office Workers as mere neutrality. If these people are to be attacked in that fashion because they adopted a statesmanlike attitude when they met you the other day—The Postmaster-General is looking puzzled. Let me tell him what I am getting at. During your introduction—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, who has not been here for very long, but he should address the Chair.

Mr. Morris: May I apologise most sincerely? Will you put it down to my complete ignorance of the customs of this House, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
I wish to deal with the point made by the Postmaster-General this afternoon. In the course of his contribution

he referred to the meeting he had with the executive council of the Union of Post Office Workers. He said, referring to the time before the conference, "When I met them in deputation they adopted a policy of neutrality". I say that that is a complete misrepresentation.

Mr. Bevins: This is becoming tiresome. I never said anything of the sort. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is on the record."] It will be on the record. I did not refer to the deputation. I said that since the decision of the conference to turn down this proposal the executive had adopted an attitude of neutrality, which is true.

Mr. Morris: That is precisely what I have said. The right hon. Gentleman can put what interpretation he likes on it. I hope hat the House will decide who is reflecting the truth of what the Postmaster-General said in his contribution to the debate.
No matter which way the voting on this Motion goes, the decision on it will not be all-important. What is important is that within the Post Office there is an harmonious relationship between the Postmaster-General and the departmental heath and the staff whom they control and who serve the Post Office and the nation. Debates which take place here are important, but the Post Office will have to go on providing its services long after this debate is over. I indicated when I started my speech that we have had two occasions in the past two yeas when Post Office workers within the minor manipulative grades have been on the brink of the abyss of industrial action. They took industrial action in January, 1962.
I hope that the Postmaster-General will reflect and take a more realistic view of the opinions which are being expressed to him by the able leaders who represent the nation's postmen. I hope that the House will reject the Amendment and will vote in favour of the Motion.

5.40 p.m.

Sir Kenneth Thompson: The House may recall that I was privileged to serve in the capacity of Assistant Postmaster-General for about three years, long enough for me to develop a deep affection for the Post


Office and all who work in it and the greatest possible respect for all the services which it renders to the community. Nothing could be more hurtful to the Post Office in particular or to the country as a whole than that anything should be done to damage either the relationship that exists between all members of the staff of the Post Office at whatever level or the quality of the service that the Post Office gives.
I hope that, whatever the outcome of this debate, and whatever may be said in the course of it, it will be realised that the two prizes which we seek to achieve will be, first, that the first-class mail service of the Post Office will never be damaged or imperilled, and, secondly, that nothing will be said or done that will damage the structure of the relationship that exists within the Post Office at the present time. If we approach the question of a household delivery service with those two objectives in view, then possibly we are in a position to arrive at a sensible conclusion.
I do not believe that this is a political issue. Neither can I believe that the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) really believes that the household delivery service is some wicked idea concocted by the Conservative Central Office in Smith Square in order that we shall have a better chance than we already have of winning the next election. I do not believe that to be true for a moment and I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Belper believes it to be true either.
My right hon. Friend would be gravely remiss in the administration of the Post Office if he saw an opportunity for increasing the revenue of the Post Office and improving the services that it can render to the community and then proceeded to neglect them. Here is an undoubted service already being given in some sketchy forms over selected areas in the country. It is obviously a useful service or it could not survive commercially and obviously a profitable service by the same token, What, then, is wrong with the British Post Office taking part of this service, and as much of it as it can get on strictly competitive commercial terms, in order to add to the revenue of the Post Office? On straightforward commercial considerations I can see no real argument against it.
I see the point of view of the postman who says that this is a commercial operation which ought to be done by girls, wearing a particular coloured overall with the name of the firm on it, delivering leaflets or samples as a special service, and that this is something different from and less than the kind of service that the uniformed State servant—the postman—proud, dignified and responsible as he is, has been accustomed to give. I see that argument. But what is in the argument? Is it really true that what the postman does today in delivering the addressed mail—collecting, transferring, sorting and then delivering—is so different from what he is now to be asked to do in the household delivery service? If it were true that the leaflets to be delivered in this service were mere frivolithes—were mere throw-away, unimportant leaflets of the nature that we seen on the street corners—there might be something in the argument.
This is quite an expensive service. It is a service that can be used only by someone who is determined that he is prepared to pay enough to get his message delivered into the houses in which he wants to get it delivered. This is not a lighthearted enterprise that anyone who wants to get his message delivered for 12s. 6d. a dozen will engage in. This is a serious enterprise that can appeal only to some one who has something he wants to say and is prepared to make the effort to see that it is said at the very points where he wants it said. That is precisely what the postman has been doing all his life. He has been accepting a responsibility that is quite considerable and carrying it out as a uniformed, responsible, trained and very highly-skilled servant of the State. He is being asked to do the same thing with a service which is wanted by people who are prepared to pay a considerable price for it.
Let us remember that five guineas per thousand for city or urban delivery is only one part of the cost that falls on the man who wants his message delivered. He has to have the message printed and to employ, since he is in business in a fairly big and responsible way, a designer, a draftsman, or at least a script writer to get the whole thing right. This is a highly-skilled and highly-expensive service, and it demands that


it should be handled by somebody in a very special and highly-skilled class. For these reasons in particular, I think that it can be done by no other service than the Post Office. I hope that my right hon. Friend will stick to his guns and see that this is not only continued but lifted to a proper, responsible part of the Post Office service.

Mr. Julian Snow: Is the hon. Member suggesting that this service should be introduced where there is already a shortage of postmen, for instance in my constituency, where there is a severe shortage of postmen and where they are working up to 25 hours a week overtime as it is? Is he suggesting that this service will not jeopardise the existing service even more?

Sir K. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman was here when I made my two qualifications of the service. It can stand only provided that it is not allowed to impinge on the high quality of the services that we already give and that the operation of it, the day-to-day arrangements, do not cause any deterioration in the relationship that exists between the staff of the Post Office at all levels. These are conditions which must override all other qualifications of this service or of any other services concerned. This is not the only part of the Post Office service that might cause difficulties in a constituency area, such as the hon. Gentleman represents, or at certain times of the year in practically every one of our constituencies. They are nevertheless essential qualifications that must be observed by the Post Office if this service is to be accepted as part of the normal run of the services of the Post Office. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is as much aware of and as careful of these considerations as anyone who has ever had anything to do with the Post Office. I hope that he will stick to his guns in this matter and see that the service is developed to the very best of his ability.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: A case can be made out against having any new household service at all, but it is more difficult to justify the Opposition's Motion which, in effect, proposes that the new delivery service should proceed but that the dissemina-

tion of political propaganda and other highly contentious matter should be excluded.
I do not look at this problem with a prejudice in favour of the increased distribution of political propaganda. I cannot envisage a situation in which the party to which I have the honour to belong would be so well endowed with funds as to outdo the other parties in the distribution of literature. I can, therefore, look at this subject somewhat objectively. In any case, it would be very difficult to define political propaganda. For example, I understand that a certain religious denomination advises its members that it is wrong to vote. I do not know whether literature issued on behalf of that denomination would be regarded as political.
There is a more serious example. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) referred to family planning. If, under the present system of second-class mail, a leaflet were to be distributed in a small wrapper showing quite clearly the words "Support family planning", that would be quite permissible. It might upset some postmen—I do not know—but I do not see how a logical distinction can be made between that leaflet and another delivered without a wrapper. The right hon. Member said that this new service was not just an extension of the postal service, but represented a difference in degree and kind. There is a difference in degree, but not in kind. There may well be a considerable increase in the amount of matter a postman will have to carry, and it is most important that postmen and postwomen should be adequately remunerated. That is why our Amendment stresses the need for a satisfactory reward for these people.
I have here a letter from the wife of a postman. I do not normally quote from an anonymous letter, but in this case I am satisfied with the writer's reasons for not giving her name, and her letter illustrates the attitude of a number of postmen's wives. She writes:
I am writing in the hope that you will please press for an increase in the postman's wages. The Household Delivery Service is only one of the bitter grievances of men like my husband, who brings home less than £11 per week to feed, clothe, pay rent, rates, provide for holidays, etc.
How can we expect to be even decently dressed or fed on £11 15s. gross for 45 hours?


Further on she says:
My husband used to be proud to serve in his job, but now he is dispirited …
A little later she pleads:
In heaven's name, please do something …
I am sure that most hon. Members will sympathise with the writer's point of view, but would the proposals in the Oppositon's Motion really help? I do not think that they would.
I have one or two queries about the working of the scheme. First, how will the prohibition on certain types of literature work? That raises certain practical problems that we must face. I am not too happy about censorship by individual head postmasters. Would it not be possible to have principles clearly laid down, and approved in some way by Parliament, rather than leaving the decision to individual head postmasters?
I do not suggest that we should cut out political material. I have already made it clear that, on principle, I cannot see how, if we have this service, we can say that political matter must be excluded. What the House ought to consider is the amount of money expended by organisations of various kinds on political propaganda prior to a General Election. The figure for maximum expenses now allowed a candidate is antiquated in comparison with the colossal amount expended in other ways. We should consider that aspect, but we cannot deal with that problem under the heading of this particular service.
There is probably a simple answer to my next question. The Post Office rightly has a monopoly of the ordinary mail but, presumably, that will not apply to this delivery service. This point had not occurred to me until my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) received the following letter from a Mr. Caro, who writes:
Dear Mr. Grimond,
With regard to the new service, shortly to be introduced by the Postmaster-General concerning the distribution of unaddressed circulars, I am of the impression that if this is allowed to go through a situation might arise which would make it illegal for private individuals to indulge in door to door leaflet distribution.

When the Post Office is responsible for services (postal telegrams, telephone and radio, etc.) they automatically become the monopoly of the State, and legislation prevents firms or individuals from entering into competition, whether it be on a profit making basis or not. One can well see that now the Post Office intend providing an unaddressed leaflet delivery service, small tradesmen, political parties and companies in existence for this purpose might well be breaking the law.
I would suggest that the Postmaster-General gives assurance (during tomorrow's debate)"—
that is today:
that the right of individuals to indulge in their own leaflet distribution will not be threatened by the introduction of the new service by him.
Perhaps the Government spokesman will be able to give me an answer later this evening.
Would it be practicable for members of the public to opt out of this service? I suppose that it would be too difficult. There are members of the public who dislike receiving quantities of literature by whatever means it is delivered. Literature without any envelope or wrapping is probably the least popular and the least likely to be read, and literature in an envelope addressed to the occupier is regarded less favourably than that which bears the address of the person. The reason is probably psychological. Furthermore, some people are just fed up with the amount of literature coming through the letter box, and I have some sympathy with them. I do not know whether it would be possible to register people who wish to be non-recipients. That might be impracticable, but it could be looked into—

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: Has it not occurred to the hon. Gentleman that if we were to take this course, in households where there were five or six people, two of them might wish to reject this service while three would be eager to accept it? That difficulty could not be readily overcome.

Mr. Wade: That is a very interesting conundrum, but I shall not try to answer it now.
More important is the effect of this delivery service on first- and second-class mail. The Postmaster-General last week gave me an assurance that has been repeated today. We all know that


Christmas time is an exception. A great effort is made to get Christmas cards out before Christmas Day, and my impression is that first-class mail is held up then as a result. I often have complaints from business firms and other concerns about business mail being delayed during that period—and this may be a matter of great importance to a business man. But these people are prepared to put up with that during the 10 days to Christmas. Nevertheless, one would not wish that to happen from time to time during the year, so one must stress the importance of not delaying first-and second-class mail. Already, I frequently have complaints in Huddersfield about delays in the delivery of mail.
I return to the point of fair remuneration. I am aware of complaints made by postmen on the score of their standing in the community—that they are civil servants, and do not wish to be regarded as of a lower standing—but I think that, in the long run, that is closely linked to remuneration. If they were well paid, I do not think that their standing in the community would be lowered merely because they were asked to help with this new kind of service. It is for that reason that our Amendment states, first,
… that any extra work postmen and post-women are required to do is satisfactorily rewarded",
and, secondly,
… that it involves no reduction in the standard of service for fully paid mail …".
If these conditions are satisfied, it would be reasonable that this service should be tried out.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On the occasion when he announced that this service would be coming into operation, my right hon. Friend gave among his reasons for introducing it that he felt that it was right from a commercial point of view. Usually, when we are discussing the affairs of a nationalised industry in the House, we are not allowed to discuss commercial matters which are the day-to-day responsibility of the industry, but this, of course, does not apply to the Post Office. The Post Office is a Government Department financed by the State and the profit from it is taken by the State.
The first question one must ask oneself, as a Member of this House, is whether the new service is likely to be a good commercial proposition. Whatever may be said in the Motion moved by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), or the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend, political propaganda and the delivery of it are quite secondary to the question whether this kind of service will be a commercial proposition. I doubt that it will be a commercial proposition. This point has already been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides. I am doubtful about it because I am not at all certain that the kind of people to use the new service will not come from those who already use the ordinary second-class mail service.
Also, I am a little concerned that by introducing this service my right hon. Friend may find himself involved in commercial matters which at present do not trouble him. Acting through his officers, he will have to look at mail as it goes through the service. He will have to decide what is to go through and what is not to go through. This, it seems to me, will be a form of censorship. I know that my right hon. Friend argues otherwise, but one cannot seek to ascertain what is going through the service, whether there is, for instance, pornographic literature being circulated, if one does not look at everything.
My right hon. Friend will be involved in passing through the service all kinds of circulars, samples and the like from commercial firms. Some of the commercial firms will, no doubt, be making perfectly bona fide offers. Others may be shady; their samples and their offers may be suspect. If their material went through the ordinary mail, there would be no problem, because my right hon. Friend does not know what they are pushing through the ordinary mail, and he can deal with them through the normal processes of the law whenever he thinks that they are sending by mail something which they ought not to send. In this service, on the other hand, he will be in a difficulty. In my view, therefore, it will provide a new kind of commercial risk for the Post Office.
Further, on the commercial side, I am not at all sure that there will be the


kind of demand for the service, at the price which the Post Office will charge, which will make it profitable, taking into account the extra money which must be paid to postmen or the extra staff it may be necessary to take on. This is a matter of pure commercial judgment, of course, and usually in discussing these things in the context of other nationalised industries we should be ruled out of order by the Chair.
There is another reason why I am a little concerned. I am concerned about the staff side of this operation. During the coming months, as we have been during the past year or two, we shall in this country be involved in affecting great changes in industry, with the introduction of automation, the adoption of new industrial processes and the like. Sometimes it may take months, sometimes a year or two, to get the changes on a proper footing. There is already an instance. At one of our biggest steel companies, in the Midlands, it took a long period of discussion to get moving to fruition new processes to get them fully working, because this operation involved redundancy and other changes in conditions for the workpeople.
Whenever one is introducing a new service, not only in a nationalised industry, the Post Office or anything run by the State but in private industry as well, it is important to make absolutely sure of carrying the staff along with one. Of course, management does not have to do everything just because the staff want it. In this case, the Post Office workers must realise that it is their duty to work the service when it is introduced. But I remind my right hon. Friend of something said by the Assistant Postmaster-General on 25th March last, when the idea of this service was first mooted.
The proposal was supported by the then hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw, the late Mr. Will Williams. Incidentally, I take exception to some of the comments made by right hon. and hon. Members opposite about the quotation from what was said by the late Mr. Williams. He was a great friend of many hon. Members on both sides of the House. I say that to the present hon. Member for Openshaw (Mr. C. Morris). We sat under Mr. Williams' chairmanship in Committee.

It is quite a common thing to quote the words of a Member who may, unhappily, have died. It has been done by the present Leader of the Opposition, who has at that Box quoted things said by the previous Leader of the Opposition.
It is unfair of hon. Members opposite to suggest that my right hon. Friend should not have quoted what Mr. Williams said.

Mr. Harry Randall: rose…

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry. I have not time to give way.
The late Mr. Williams supported the idea of this service at the time, and he gave a list of deliveries which might be sent. At the end of that list, he said something like "and other things". He left it quite open.
Now, on this occasion, in winding up, my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General said:
The household delivery of literature is being seriously studied, and we wish to take advantages of the opportunities …
This was in reply to the late hon. Member for Openshaw.
naturally, we do not wish to take the final step before we have reached agreement with the staff on this matter".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 1073.]
That seemed to me to be a promise which should be fulfilled by the Postmaster-General. I have, therefore, some doubt on the staff side of the matter.
Last, I have some doubt about whether people really want the service in its present form.

Mr. F. Blackburn: Or in any form.

Mr. Lewis: In a restricted form, there is scope for the Post Office here, scope to take out many leaflets, pamphlets, bills and the like from local authorities, other Government Departments and people of that sort.

Mr. Blackburn: Making skilled men into errand boys.

Mr. Lewis: But I think that there is something to be said against postmen being involved in carrying bagfulls of propaganda, advertising material and samples. I regard this as a job which should be done by the private companies


which are involved in these things themselves. I believe that people generally, when they resent much "junk" and rubbish being put through their doors, put up with it when it comes from a private source because they have to, because the private sources are so numerous that they cannot get at them.
But if we involve postmen and the Post Office in carrying too much of this advertising and publicity material, we may make the postman the focal point for resentment, and we will lose the kind of good relationship which the public has always had with the postman. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will go forward with this service but will look at it again and consider whether it can be rather more defined than he has defined it so far.
The way it is, I cannot support the Amendment in the Lobby. [HON. MEMBERS: "Vote with us."] I would not think of voting for the Opposition's Motion, because it is nonsense. The Post Office already carries political propaganda and hon. Members opposite know this perfectly well. I could fully subscribe to the Government Amendment, but if I vote for it I should be not only doing that, but voting for the service as it is proposed, and I am not happy with the service as it is proposed. Therefore, I will abstain.
I do not want my right hon. Friend to withdraw the service. I simply want to have discussions on it on the way in which it should be applied. I certainly do not want my right hon. Friend in any way to run away from the political argument which has been put forward by the Opposition, because, as the Post Office already carries political propaganda, there is absolutely nothing in the argument that the service has been introduced for this purpose or that it can apply with advantage to one political party as against another. The Opposition Front Bench knows this as well as I do.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) mention again the name of my late hon. Friend the former Member for Manchester, Openshaw, Mr. Will Williams. It is my intention to place it once more on the record that on 25th March, 1963,

referring to bills, notices, rate notices from local authorities and notices from private commercial firms and insurance firms, my hon. Friend specifically said "and all the rest". Anybody in this House who knew "Bill" Williams could never have imagined him—indeed, he would have been grievously hurt if challenged with doing so—advocating the service that the Postmaster-General has now brought forward, which introduces advertising on a large scale and political matter.
What the Minister said about the executive of the Union of Post Office Workers was offensive. To state that it took a neutral attitude is wrong, because the U.P.W. executive, exactly the same as my late hon. Friend, advocated a household delivery service, but did not have in mind its use for political propaganda purposes.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: In his speech, will the hon. Member make plain exactly what limitations the U P.W. seeks? I understand them to include commercial advertising. Will the hon. Gentleman make plain exactly what are the precise exclusions? Are they political only, or is there anything else?

Mr. Mason: The hon. Member, I gather, has only just come into the Chamber. I have been here since 3.30. If the hon. Member will wait and see, he will probably gather from my speech precisely what attitude we take.
I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Sir K. Thompson) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, who said that this service must be seen to pay. In spite of the speech of the Postmaster-General, I am not yet satisfied—and, as the right hon. Gentleman has not convinced me, he will not have, convinced other hon. Members—that the service is necessary, that it will be profitable, or that the right hon. Gentleman has not departed from past practices.
The Postmaster-General hastily introduced this 'measure. It had not been properly thought out. It was announced on 6th January. It was publicly advertised in all general post offices that the service was available on 20th January. Yet following the first query—that of racial and political propaganda—the


Postmaster-General flapped, the Post Office was puzzled and the service was suspended.

Mr. Bevins: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mason: It is all on record. There seems to have been little consultation about the service. The Post Office Advisory Council was not consulted and never discussed it. The Postmaster-General notified the Advisory Council that he would introduce it, but he never sought the council's advice. Indeed, before introducing the service he had no knowledge of what public reaction would be. He knew very well that the postmen would react strongly against the scheme.
That is the trouble with the right hon. Gentleman. Too often in Post Office affairs he acts like a bull in a china shop. He did the same with the introduction of subscriber trunk dialling. There was little thought beforehand of public reaction. The scheme is running months behind time. It was born in the face of public protest. There have been shoals of letters in the Press. Questions were asked in the House. The matter was raised in debate and, shortly after the introduction of S.T.D., there had to be a change in the cost of calls.
That is the trouble with this new service. It has been born against a background of discontent in the Post Office and from the public. The few thousand pounds that the right hon. Gentleman hopes to make will be offset by a worsening of relationships between postmen and the Postmaster-General and, likewise, between the postmen and the public.
Listening to the Postmaster-General and to the debate, I have not been satisfied that sufficient consideration has been given to the effects of the service upon postmen, upon head postmasters and upon the efficiency of the postal service. Postmen genuinely feel that they are being downgraded, that they are suffering loss of dignity, that there will be a loss of respect for them and that the public image of the Post Office will be tarnished.
Imagine the postman's position and difficulties. Does he, or does he not, take out the leaflets with the early morning delivery? If he does, undoubtedly

the early morning delivery will be delayed and the efficiency of the service will suffer. The Postmaster-General knows that an indication has gone out from his office to all the advisory councils suggesting that, where possible, that should be done.
There have been shoals of complaints in the House about the inefficiency of the service, mails being delayed, late deliveries, and so on. The new service will aggravate the situation. If, on the other hand, a postmaster decides that there is too much mail to go out with the first mail and that deliveries might be retarded, he must decide upon a special service.
The Postmaster-General never does his homework. He is too slick at the Box in trying to introduce these measures. He said that 10,000 million items a year now go out and that he expects an addition of 150 million items under this service. He blandly said that that would be an increase of 1½ per cent. He knows that the increase will not apply evenly throughout the country. Postal "pockets" will be chosen by commercial organisations and in these districts the increase will be a great deal higher than 1½ per cent. If there is to be a special service, a second delivery exclusively for leaflets, I wonder whether, as they will have to be delivered at every household delivery point, overtime may be necessary and there will be sufficient postmen in some areas to carry out the service.
I do not want the red herring of competition to be drawn across my path. One of the reasons why the postal service is losing revenue is the loss of coupon traffic. That coupon traffic was fully paid for. The new service is a cheap, selective service, not an expensive one, at half the rate of the coupon traffic. Consequently, the coupon traffic could carry a little overtime and a special delivery because it made money. The 1¼d. rate for leaflets will not be able to do that.
The Postmaster-General referred to the fact that advertisers are doing these deliveries and that the Post Office wanted to try to take some of the traffic because the advertisers had been taking the 2½d. traffic. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that those who remained loyal and faithful to the G.P.O., who continued to send their printed matter in a 2½d. envelope, will now switch to the


leaflets and the Post Office will lose on the printed paper rate? I am not yet convinced that this service will pay.
Samples are also allowed to be delivered by this service. Any manufacturer who wants to advertise any product can send out a 4 oz. or 2 oz. sample. The manufacturers are likely to send out 2 oz. samples, because they will not want to give too much away. There can be samples of soap, toothpaste, detergents, or drugs. This means special deliveries, because the postman has only a 35 lb. pouch and if he takes 2 oz. samples he can deliver only 280 and he may have 400 delivery points. This will necessitate his doubling back to make the extra delivery, or more postmen will have to be employed on the walk. I am satisfied that the sample service on its own will not pay.
Another question is the size of the material to be allowed. Have hon. Members read the instructions for the service? The maximum size will be 12 in. by 4¾ in. by ¾ in. thick. Many of those cannot be accommodated in a pouch, and if there is to be a deluge of these things in an area many postmen will be required to take them out. I cannot see how that can pay.
It is obvious to me, therefore, that this will be a subsidised service. In other words, manufacturers of detergents or soap will be guaranteed a house-to-house delivery by uniformed civil servants, and some other post office activity will have to subsidise it. The Postmaster-General estimates a profit of £300,000 this year, at a time when General Election propaganda will go out before Parliament is dissolved. It therefore should be a profitable year. It may well be that the whole service will have to be subsidised if it does not pay in the first year. As I have said, the right hon. Gentleman estimates a £300,000 per year profit in the first year's operations. What a measly sum at the expense of the postman and his status and the public ill-feeling and the G.P.O. gradually turning the letterbox into a litter bin.
What about the head postmaster's dilemma? He will suffer most. The usual rules are easy. The matter must not be obscene, libellous, or likely to cause a breach of the peace. This is the general run of instructions to head

postmasters. The Postmaster-General says that this case is no different. He has defeated that argument time and again in his own speech by now bringing fresh rules. He has now sent out instructions to head postmasters that no matter must go out which is offensive to young people, and no racial literature must be delivered. This is because these are open leaflets. They are not in sealed packets and there must be stronger censorship. Head postmasters now become censors. They become political censors because they have to decide what is political material and whether it can go through openly in the leaflet post. But the head postmaster has no guidance on political matter yet.
At the moment, in the main, the only bodies wanting to use this service are the Conservative "front" organisations—Aims of Industry, Industrial Aids Limited, and possibly the Economic League. They have printed thousands of leaflets and are clamouring to use the service. It makes one believe that the right hon. Gentleman is now allowing political matter to go through solely because of that. Indeed, it makes one believe that he is allowing political matter purposely to assist the Tory trumpeters with an easy, cheap and guaranteed access to every home.
The right hon. Gentleman certainly did not have this in mind when he introduced the service. It was not in the documents which he sent out, in the Press hand-outs or in the regulations on the household delivery service. There was no comment in any of these about political matter. It is only since the service has been advertised that the right hon. Gentleman has sent out fresh instructions on racial literature and matter which is offensive to young people.
As for the Aims of Industry leaflets, the anti-nationalisation propaganda will probably go to steel-producing areas. These Conservative "front" organisations may have had difficulty in any case in finding a sufficient number of sympathetic distributors. In any event, the propaganda would not have been efficiently distributed. What better than that a Government Department should be used with uniformed postmen as their agents?
This is where we cross swords with the right hon. Gentleman. This departure from past custom and practice is to be deplored. As has been said, British Railways and the I.T.A. go out of their way, in their rules, to cover this point. It is no use frowning and saying that there is no comparison here; there is. Uniformed postmen will take out leaflets carrying advertising and political matter, and it will be open matter just the same as if it were put on hoardings. This literature will not be sealed and the postmen will know precisely what it is. Therefore, there is an analogy here.
British Railways are quite clear about their rules governing the acceptance of advertisements which are controlled by British Transport Advertising Limited on behalf of British Railways. They say specifically that
Advertisements will not be accepted for or retained on display on British Transport Advertising sites if they … might wound racial susceptibilities … attack a member or the policies of any Government … are of a political nature, whether produced by a political party or not … might foment social unrest.
As the Postmaster-General knows, in the matter of programme content the I.T.A., under the provisions of the Television Act, 1954 makes sure that nothing is included in programmes which
offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling or which contains any offensive representation of or reference to a living person …
Section 3(1.g) provides that
no matter designed to serve the interests of any political party is included in the programmes.
The Second Schedule of the Act states that there must be no material which has a bearing on industrial disputes.
I should like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to two of these matters. First, there is the sentence in the British Railways rules about fomenting social unrest and then there is the I.T.A. ruling about matters which have a bearing on industrial disputes. The Post Office will be inundated with requests from minority groups who have an axe to grind, the Fascists, the Nazis and—I say this as a trade unionist—the warped-minded Martells and the racialists. The Martells already have pamphlets waiting for the Postmaster-General to say that they can

go through the post. These antidemocratic factions may send out material which is not racialist, obscene or likely to cause a breach of the peace, but it may cause social unrest and lead to strikes. Where will the Postmaster-General draw the line and what are the rules which will govern all this? These anti-democratic factions may send out political material which is not racialist, or obscene, or likely to cause a breach of the peace, but which may foment social unrest, and, in some strike ridden areas, may worsen the relations between management and men, and, indeed, even cause a strike.
This new service is cheap and is attractive to people, and above all it is a guaranteed delivery in chosen pockets or postal districts in any part of the country. The service, used in this way, can be dangerous, and it places our postmen in the invidious position of being political censors.
What is the Postmaster-General going to allow? We have always been proud in this country of its political stability. We have never denied democratic rights to minorities. On the other hand, we have never encouraged factions whose sole aim is to undermine and destroy our democratic institutions. This service will be an encouragement to them. If, say, there is social unrest, how guilty will the Postmaster-General and head postmasters, and postmen, feel about it?
I must stress to hon. Members that this is a very cheap service. Those who use it have no addressing of envelopes to do; they do not have to buy envelopes. The minority factions can choose pockets or postal districts. The Postmaster-General and head postmasters will have great difficulty in deciding whether or not the material is contrary to the blanket rules, whether it is strongly political or otherwise.
The timing of the service could not have been worse, either. The right hon. Gentleman told us that it will stop as soon as Parliament has been dissolved, and that it will not be allowed in a by-election area when a Writ has been issued. There are five by-elections pending at the moment; most of the candidates have been chosen, and the initial sparring has begun. So it is all right then for the Aims of Industry, the


Economic League, Industrial Aids, Ltd., Martell—any of those—to cheat the Representation of the People Act, to cheat the statement the right hon. Gentleman made, by his allowing the Conservative "front" organisations to flood the areas concerned? They can do it now. The same will apply to these factions who get by his political censors in the Greater London area; they will be able to influence the Greater London electorate as well. It also affects one-sixth of the Members of this House who will probably be active in that campaign.
If the B.B.C. felt guilty over the political controversial content of "T.W.T W.T.W." and withdrew it on the ground that this is election year, why does the Postmaster-General allow his Department to be used in political controversy at this time? Five by-elections are pending, the Greater London Council election is pending, local elections are almost on our doorstep, and there is, indeed, a General Election expectancy in the air.

Mr. C. Brown: Not much expectancy amongst hon. Members opposite, judging by the way they look.

Mr. Mason: But the timing could not have been worse for another reason. The right hon. Gentleman knew that the Union of Post Office Workers' conference had turned down his scheme. He knew, also, that the postmen were against his imposition of a low wages policy on postmen and that the postmen are now mustering their forces for seeking a national revision of wages. There is great unrest in the Post Office. In the face of all this the right hon. Gentleman decides to launch a scheme which to many postmen proved to be the last straw—hence the lobbying today and the meetings upstairs, and the many Union of Post Office Workers' branches' resolutions against it.
I recognise that the Post Office is losing about £8 million on postal activithes—although I understand that this will be reduced to about £4 million this year—and that this has been mainly caused by the loss of pools traffic, but what worries us is that the Postmaster-General forgets that the Post Office is a public service, a fact which must always be borne in mind during his bouts of commercial fanaticism. He also is pruning back the rural telephone

kiosk service, and he is gradually stifling the telegram service. Now he is introducing the unaddressed delivery service, which could well impair his mail delivery service.
In view of the fact that this service is generally not wanted, and that it will blur the public service image of the Post Office for little financial return, that we fear that there will be a worsening of relationships all round, and, above all, that our postmasters are to be asked to be political censors, and that this is departing from the nationally recognised convention that Government Departments and agencies should not be used for politically controversial services, we intend to ask the House to vote against the introduction of the service.

6.35 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster-General (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The concluding words of the most eloquently delivered speech of the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) underline the tangle in which the Opposition have got themselves on this issue.
When my right hon. Friend answered a Question last Wednesday the attack on him, led by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), was that he was introducing the service at all. Indeed, during the course of this debate at least two-thirds of the speech to which we have just listened, and about one-third of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and the whole of that of the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. C. Morris), were directed not to the issue actually raised by the Motion, whirl speaks of
any debasing of the public services … by allowing them to be used for the dissemination of political propaganda and other highly contentious matter
but related to an attack on the service as a whole.
Therefore we must ask hon. Members opposite to be a little clearer than that about what it is they are asking the House to decide this evening.

Mr. Dan Jones: Not to do it at all.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member says, "Not to do it at all." Of course, that is precisely the opposite


of what his right hon. Friends have put in their Motion. It is a long Motion, but there is a copy by the hon. Member—

Mr. D. Jones: I have read it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —in which he will see that it relates to
the dissemination of political propaganda and other highly contentious matter".

Mr. G. Brown: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is really quite as obtuse as he is making out, but let us get it quite clear. There is still time for the House, under its ordinary procedure, to decide whether or not regulations shall be made. At this stage, what we are saying, as I was very careful to say to the right hon. Gentleman, is that if, despite all the arguments we have put, the Government want to pursue it, then we will consider that in the light of whether they are prepared to amend the regulations in accordance with our Motion. That is what I said. This is the constitutional position. That, at this stage, is what the right hon. Gentleman should address himself to.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is precisely the Motion to which I am addressing myself. The Motion says nothing whatever about stopping the inception of the service.

Mr. William Hamilton: That can come later.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman can say that it comes later, but I am dealing with the proposal which the Opposition have seen fit to put in the Motion.
I know why hon. and right hon. Members put it in this way. They realise that it is patently inconsistent for the Labour Party, which stresses in and out of season the need for nationalised industries to expand their scope, to come forward and attack my right hon. Friend when he proposes an additional service to the public which will improve the financial position of the Post Office. It is completely inconsistent with what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said at his 1961 party conference, that nationalised industries should be set free to expand their activities.
When my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, whose skill and determination in restoring and improving the finances of the Post Office are plainly serving the public interest in general and the interests of his staffs in particular, comes forward with a proposal of this sort I would not have been surprised if some of my hon. Friends had taken a little exception—indeed, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) did—to this extension of nationalised industry's scope in competition with private enterprise in what is believed to be a remunerative field.
But it comes ill from hon. Gentlemen opposite. I think that that is the reason why they have, in the Motion—if not in a good many of their speeches—switched from the line taken last Wednesday, and produced this portentous Motion about "debasing" the public service and "political propaganda and other highly contentious matters".
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman made rather heavy weather about political propaganda. There is not an hon. Member who would be in this House at all had he not taken part in political propaganda. The right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. In what, as I think we must all agree, was one of his less happy speeches, the right hon. Gentleman sought to make an argument—here, I must accept that he did for a short time refer to the terms of the Motion—by trying to establish that there was something so different about this service that while it was, he accepted, legitimate for political propaganda to go through the ordinary mails, it should be excluded from this service.
On thinking that over, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will find that there is nothing like a sufficient difference between this service and the regular mails to sustain the totally different conclusion about whether they should carry political propaganda or not. It is carried by the same organisation, the General Post Office. It is delivered by the same organisation, using the same staff. The only substantial difference is the instructions which the sender gives about delivery which are given in general terms—shall we say, "Deliver to all the houses in Barnsley"—rather than that each envelope is separately addressed.
If it is unobjectionable for political propaganda to be delivered anywhere one likes in the country if the sender puts a 3d. stamp on an envelope and addresses it or a 2½d. stamp on a postcard and addresses it I cannot see why there is any objection—when it is being delivered by a "uniformed public servant", to quote the right hon. Gentleman—to any house in the country by means of this new service.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the propaganda delivered by this service would be open and not in envelopes. That argument will not sustain the difference. One can send political propaganda on a postcard; indeed, I believe that a good deal of propaganda is sent in that way. With their worldly wisdom the courts of law have said that we must presume that postcards are read in transmission.
One can go further and stamp a political slogan on an envelope going through the ordinary post. In May of this year the director of the Labour Party's publicity organisation in Smith Square asked the permission of the Post Office to put a slogan on envelopes emerging from that address stating "Let's go with Labour"—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —"and we'll get things done."
I think that even the right hon. Gentleman would accept that that was political propaganda, and that hon. Members who cheered it did so because they thought that it was political propaganda. It is not very good political propaganda. But it is the best that hon. Gentlemen opposite can do, so we must not be too censorious. That is the most blatant political propaganda, and I must stress that it was permitted to anyone who cared to put a 3d. stamp on a letter and put that slogan on it. It was delivered by a uniformed public servant. What is the distinction between that use of political propaganda—

Mr. G. Brown: The 3d. stamp.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The 3d. stamp—exactly. Political propaganda ceases to be political propaganda if it costs you 3d.—according to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be enjoying himself. But let us also be fair. The difference is that when one has to pay for it, provide an envelope, put a 3d. stamp on it and address the envelope to an individual person, it is a totally different operation from the door-to-door indiscriminate distribution, at a cheap cut rate, of unaddressed, open material.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Exactly. It is, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, a good deal cheaper.
But what is the deduction from that? It is that political propaganda—apparently this is the view of the right hon. Gentleman—should be rationed by the purse. If one can afford an organisation to address envelopes, and the postage—as apparently Transport House can—it is all right. The right hon. Gentleman exposes the weakness of his argument when he says that he accepts that political propaganda can go in this way, but cannot go by the cheaper method which my right hon. Friend is introducing.
The right hon. Gentleman argued that we were accepting censorship because we said that grossly offensive—to use the right hon. Gentleman's words—material should not be sent by this service. I accept that there may be marginal cases of doubt about what is grossly offensive material. It may be a matter of argument. But surely there is all the difference in the world between, for example, obscene attempts to arouse racial antagonisms, and straight obscenity, and ordinary political propaganda which would fail in its object were it anything of the sort.
The right hon. Gentleman said that anti-nationalisation propaganda—he hastily corrected himself and said anti-public service, to show that he really meant the same—was offensive to him. The right hon. Gentleman is confusing two things what is in the real sense offensive to all decent people, and propaganda. The attitude of the right hon. Gentleman is painfully different from that of the old radical who said. "I hate what you lay, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." That was the older and better tradition of radicalism in England—[HON. MEMBERS: "A Frenchman said that."]—and I am glad


to see that the members of the Liberal Party, to their credit, support it in their Amendment.
The right hon. Gentleman let a large cat out of the bag. He said that this proposal would mainly help the Conservative Party. I do not know whether he is right. He then said that opposition to it was not mainly based on that, which, I thought, a very revealing remark.

Mr. G. Brown: There is a certain degree of opposition.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman—it was referred to in some of the other speeches—suggested that the new service should follow the standards observed by three other public bodies. I accept that that is not an unreasonable criterion. It is true, as was said by the hon. Member for Barnsley, that British Railways accept some restrictions on advertisements displayed on railway premises. There is no suggestion that advertising of a political character will be displayed on Post Office premises, which is the exact analogy.
But my right hon. Friend pointed out that British Railways make absolutely no political distinction in the case of freight carried. That is an exact analogy with what the Post Office proposes to carry by means of this service. Indeed, British Railways go further. They even run a special train to take right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to their party conference.

Mr. Brown: And we pay for it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the right hon. Gentleman says, they pay for it, as the customers of this service will pay for it—at the full rate. I have no doubt that if the Liberal Party put in a similar request British Railways would be happy to supply a minibus.

Hon. Members: Cheap.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The B.B.C. is mentioned in the Motion. The Corporation does not exclude political propaganda from its programmes. There is no ban on political propaganda on the B.B.C. It maintains a proper balance in its programmes, both in the party political broadcasts which are organised by agreement with the main parties and

in the discussion programmes which, I believe, it takes great trouble to secure are properly balanced. The same goes for the I.T.A.'s political programmes.
The hon. Member for Barnsley quoted the Television Act, but he did not quote all of it. He did not quote the proviso to Section 3 under which there is provision for properly balanced political programmes. The Post Office is following that principle by providing a service which is open and available to those who do not break the rules about obscenity or offensiveness.
The next question is: why is this restriction thought necessary in this country? My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General has reminded the House that other countries which run services of this sort do not impose the political ban which is asked for. In New Zealand, where there is a very similar service, both political parties make very considerable use of it to the profit of the New Zealand Post Office. I must ask right hon. Members opposite why a protection from the "debasing" influence, to quote the Motion, of political propaganda which is not required for the New Zealander is required for the Briton. Why are we thought to be so unsophisticated that it is necessary to have this kind of protection?
The right hon. Member for Belper ducked the question of political censorship. He spent a lot of time making the point that my right hon. Friend's ban on obscenity and gross offensiveness amounted to a form of censorship. That is an arguable view, but, whatever censorship it may be, it is a very much smaller and less vicious thing that political censorship. What the Motion asks the House to approve is the introduction of political censorship in the Post Office for the first time in our history.
Hon. Members opposite are all alone in this. The Press, from The Times to the New Statesman, is against them on this. They have seen the criticisms which have been made of this venture and how the hon. Member for Barnsley referred to the problem of a head postmaster dealing with possibly obscene or offensive leaflets. I accept that there may be problems, but they are very small compared with the head postmaster's


problem of what is, or is not, for the purpose of this rule, to be treated as political propaganda.
For example, would an analysis of the reasons for the financial crisis at the end of the last two Labour Governments be political propaganda, or, as it could be suggested, an interesting historical analysis?

Mr. W. Hamilton: What about an analysis of the Tory Party leadership?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The difference is that a report on the Prime Minister would be for the benefit of my right hon. Friends, whereas it is arguable whether a biography of the Leader of the Opposition would be in our interests or in the interests of hon. Members opposite.
Take the two leaflets to which reference has been made. Is it to be said that the Post Office cannot be used to send round a leaflet about nationalisation by the new cheaper service? Take the other case, in which a former deputy chairman of the Liberal Party is apparently putting round material

suggesting that the Conservative Party should be more conservative if it is to meet his taste. Are we to censor that kind of thing? If so, where would the censorship stop? This is the serious issue which is raised by today's debate.

I accept at once that I do not think that right hon. and hon. Members opposite fully appreciated the seriousness of the issues which they raised when they tabled their Motion. I say this in their favour; I may be wrong. However, I am bound to say that I welcome this debate and their action, because it has lifted a veil on the arrogant intolerance with which a Labour Government would treat those who ventured to criticise them. They make it clear that they would use the authority of the State to check fair criticism of their measures. Many people have trod that dangerous path before. We reject it tonight. The country will reject it tomorrow.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 310.

Division No. 17.]
AYES
[6.58 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Crossman, R. H. S.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Ainsley, William
Dalyell, Tam
Hannan, William


Albu, Austen
Darling, George
Harper, Joseph


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies Harold (Leek)
Hayman, F. H.


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Healey, Denis


Baoon, Miss Alice
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)


Baird, John
Deer, George
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Barnett, Guy
Detargy, Hugh
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Diamond, John
Hilton, A. V.


Beaney, Alan
Dodds, Norman
Holman, Perey


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Doig, Peter
Houghton, Douglas


Bencs, Cyril
Driberg, Tom
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Howie, W. (Luton)


Benson, Sir George
Edelman, Maurice
Hoy, James H.


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Blyton, William
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Emrye (S. Ayrshire)


Boardman, H.
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Evans, Albert
Hunter, A. E.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Femythough, E.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Boyden, James
Finch, Harold
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Fitch, Alan
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Eric
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Foley, Maurice
Janner, Sir Barnett


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Forman, J. C.
Jeger, George


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jenkins, Roy (stechford)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Callaghan, James
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Carmichael, Neil
Ginsburg, David
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Gourlay, Harry
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Chapman, Donald
Greenwood, Anthony
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Cliffe, Michael
Grey, Charles
Jones, T. W. (Marioneth)


Collick, Peroy
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Kelley, Richard


Corbet Mrs. Freda
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Kenyon, Clifford


Craddock, George (Bradford, B.)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
King, Dr. Horace


Cronin, John
Gunter, Ray
Lawson, George


Crosland, Anthony
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Ledger, Ron




Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Oswald, Thomas
Sorensen, R. W.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Owen, Will
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Padley, W. E.
Spriggs, Leslie


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Peget, R. T.
Steele, Thomas


Lipton, Marcus
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Loughlin, Charles
Pargiter, G. A.
Stonehouse, John


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Parker, John
Stones, William


McBride, N.
Parkin, B. T.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


McCann, John
Pavitt, Laurence
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


MacColl, James
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Swain, Thomas


MacDermot, Niall
Peart, Frederick
Swingler, Stephen


McInnes, James
Pentland, Norman
Symonds, J. B.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Popplewell, Ernest
Taverne, D.


Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Prentice, R. E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


McLeavy, Frank
Price J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Probert, Arthur
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Proctor, W. T.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Mahon, Simon
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Tomney, Frank


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rankin, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Manuel, Archie
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Warbey, William


Mapp, Charles
Reid, William
Weitzman, David


Marsh, Richard
Reynolds, G. W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mason, Roy
Rhodes, H.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mayhew, Christopher
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mellish, R. J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Whitlock, William


Mendelson, J. J.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wigg, George


Millan, Bruce
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras N.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Milne, Edward
Rodgers, W. T. (Stocktson)
Willey, Frederick


Mitchison, G. R.
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Monslow, Walter
Ross, William
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Moody, A. S.
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Morris, John
Silkin, John
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Moyle, Arthur
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Woof, Robert


Neal, Harold
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Woof, Robert


Neal, Harold
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Zilliacus, K.


Oliver, G. H.
Small, William



O'Malley, B. K.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Oram, A. E.
Snow, Julian
Dr. Broughton and Mr. Redhead.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bullard, Denys
Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Emery, Peter


Allason, James
Burden, F. A.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Errington, Sir Eric


Anderson, D. C.
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Errott, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Cary, Sir Robert
Farr, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Channon, H. P. G.
Fell, Anthony


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Finlay, Graeme


Balniel, Lord
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Fisher, Nigel


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Barlow, Sir John
Cleaver, Leonard
Foster, Sir John


Barter, John
Cole, Norman
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)


Batsford, Brian
Cooke, Robert
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cooper, A. E.
Freeth, Denzil


Bell, Ronald
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Cordeaux, Lt-Col. J. K.
Gardner, Edward


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Cordle, John
Gibson-Watt, David


Berkeley, Humphry
Corfield, F. V.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Bidgood, John C.
Courlson, Michael
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)


Biffen, John
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Goodhart, Phllip


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Crawley, Aidan
Goodhew, Victor


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Critchley, Julian
Gough, Frederick


Black, Sir Cyril
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Gower, Raymond


Bossom, Hon, Clive
Curran, Charles
Grant-Ferrie, R.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Green, Alen


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Dance, James
Gresham Cooke, R.


Box, Donald
d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Gurden, Harold


Braine, Bernard
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Brewis, John
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hamitton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Doughty, Charles
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Drayson, G. B.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Duncan, Sir James
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Duthie, Sir William (Banff)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bryan, Paul
Eden, Sir John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesfield)


Buck, Antony
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)







Harvie Anderson, Miss
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Hastings, Stephen
MacLeod, Sir J. (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
McMaster, Stanley R.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Maddan, Martin
Sharples, Richard


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maginnis, John E.
Shaw, M.


Hendry, Forbes
Maitland, Sir John
Shepherd, William


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hiley, Joseph
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Marten, Neil
Speir, Rupert


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Stainton, Keith


Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Hocking, Philip N.
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Holland, Philip
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hollingworth, John
Mawby, Ray
Stodart, J. A.


Holt, Arthur
Mills, Stratton
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Miscampbell, Norman
Storey, Sir Samuel


Hopkins, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hornby, H. P.
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Tapsell, Peter


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Morgan, William
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Morrison, John
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Neave, Airey
Teeling, Sir William


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Temple, John M.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Iremonger, T. L.
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Jackson, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


James, David
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Jennings, J. C.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Johnson, Dr Donald (Carlisle)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Partridge, E.
Turner, Colin


Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Percival, Ian
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Peyton, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Vane, W. M. F.


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Kershaw, Anthony
Pitman, Sir James
Vickers, Miss Joan


Kimball, Marcus
Pitt, Dame Edith
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Kitson, Timothy
Pounder, Rafton
Wade, Donald


Lagden, Godfrey
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Walder, David


Lambton, Viscount
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walker, Peter


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Leather, Sir Edwin
Prior, J. M. L.
Wall, Patrick


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Prior, J. M. L.
Wall, Patrick


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Ward, Dame Irene


Lilley, F. J. P.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Webster, David


Lindsay, Sir Martin
Pym, Francis
Whitelaw, William


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Litchfield, Capt. John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Longbottom, Charles
Reea-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)
Wise, A. R.


Loveys, Walter H.
Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Lubbock, Eric
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Ridsdale, Julian
Woodhouse, C. M.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey
Woodnutt, Mark


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Woollam, John


MacArthur, Ian
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Wordey, Marcus


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Roots, William



Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Peel and Mr. McLaren.

Question put, That the proposed words be there added:—

The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 232.

Division No. 18.]
AYES
[7.10 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Barlow, Sir John
Biffen, John


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Barter, John
Biggs-Davison, John


Allason, James
Batsford, Brian
Bishop, F. P.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Black, Sir Cyril


Anderson, D. C.
Bell, Ronald
Bossom, Hon. Clive


Arbuthnot, John
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Bourne-Arton, A.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)


Atkins, Humphrey
Berkeley, Humphry
Box, Donald


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John


Balniel, Lord
Bidgood, John C.
Braine, Bernard




Brewis, John
Hastings, Stephen
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Brooke, Rt. Hon, Henry
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Oakshort, Sir Hendrie


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hendry, Forbes
Orr-Ewing, Sir Charles


Bryan, Paul
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Buck, Antony
Hiley, Joseph
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bullard, Denys
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Burden, F. A.
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hocking, Philip N.
Partridge, E.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Holland, Philip
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert
Hollingworth, John
Peel, John


Cary, Sir Robert
Holt, Arthur
Percival, Ian


Channon, H. P. G.
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Peyton, John


Chichester Clark, R.
Hopkins, Alan
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hornby, R. P.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Pitman, Sir James


Cleaver, Leonard
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Cole, Norman
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pounder, Rafton


Cooke, Robert
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Cooper, A. E.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, J. M. L.


Cordle, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Corfield, F. V.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Costain, A. P.
Jackson, John
Pym, Francis


Coulson, Michael
James, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Jennings, J. C.
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Crawley, Aidan
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)


Critchley, Julian
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Curran, Charles
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


Dance, James
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kershaw, Anthony
Róyle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Doughty, Charles
Kimball, Marcus
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Drayson, G. B.
Kitson, Timothy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Duncan, Sir James
Lagden, Godfrey
Sharples, Richard


Duthie, Sir William (Banff)
Lambton, Viscount
Shaw, M.


Eden, Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shepherd, William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Leather, Sir Edwin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lilley, F. J. P.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Emery, Peter
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Speir, Rupert


Errington, Sir Eric
Litchfield, Capt. John
Stainton, Keith


Farey Jones, F, W.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Farr, John
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Fell, Anthony
Longbottom, Charles
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Finlay, Graeme
Loveys, Walter H.
Stodart, J. A.


Fisher, Nigel
Lubbock, Eric
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Storey, Sir Samuel


Foster, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Studholme, Sir Henry


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Summers, Sir Spencer


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McLaren, Martin
Tapsell, Peter


Freeth, Denzil
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Gardner, Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Gibson-Watt, David
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Teeling, Sir William


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Macleod, Sir J. (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Temple, John M.


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maddan, Martin
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Maginnis, John E.
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Goodhart, Philip
Maitland, Sir John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Goodhew, Victor
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Gough, Frederick
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Gower, Raymond
Marten, Neil
Thorpe, Jeremy


Grant-Ferris, R.
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Green, Alan
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Turner, Colin


Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Stratton
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Miscampbell, Norman
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Vane, W. M. F.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan, William
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccelesf'd)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wade, Donald


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Neave, Airey
Welder, David


Harris Anderson, Miss
Nicholls, Sir Harmer
Walker Peter







Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Woollam, John


Wall, Patrick
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Worsley, Marcus


Ward, Darne Irene
Wise, A. R.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Webster, David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick



Whitelaw, William
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Woodhouse, C. M.
M. MacArthur and


Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. Hugh Rees.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moody, A. S.


Ainsley, William
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Albu, Austen
Gunter, Ray
Morris, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Moyle, Arthur


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Neal, Harold


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Hannan, William
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Harper, Joseph
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Baird, John
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oliver, G. H.


Barnett, Guy
Hayman, F. H.
O'Malley, B. K.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Healey, Denis
Oran, A. E.


Beaney, Alan
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Oswald, Thomas


Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Owen, Will


Bence, Cyril
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Padley, W. E.


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Hilton, A. V.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Holman, Percy
Pargiter, G. A.


Benson, Sir George
Houghton, Douglas
Parker, John


Blackburn, F.
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Parkin, B. T.


Blyton, William
Howell, Dents (Small Heath)
Pavitt, Laurence


Boardman, H.
Howie, W. (Luton)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hoy, James H.
Peart, Frederick


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, Norman


Boyden, James
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Popplewalt, Ernest


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Prentice, R. E.


Bradley, Tom
Hunter, A. E.
Price, J. T. (Westhougton)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Probert, Arthur


Brown, RI. Hon. George (Belper)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Proctor, W. T.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pureey, cmdr. Harry


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Randall, Harry


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rankin, John


Callaghan, James
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Jeger, George
Reid, William


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Reynolds, G. W.


Cliffe, Michael
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rhodes, H.


Collick, Percy
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cronin, John
Jones J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, T. W. (Merionoth)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockson)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Kelley, Richard
Rogers G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Dalyell, Tam
Kenyon, Clifford
Ross, William


Darling, George
King, Dr. Horace
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lawson, George
Silkin, John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ledger, Ron
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Skeffington, Arthur


Deer, George
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Delargy, Hugh
Lipton, Marcus
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Diamond, John
Loughlin, Charles
Small, William


Dodds, Norman
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Doig, Peter
McBride, N.
Snow, Julian


Driberg, Tom
McCann, John
Sorensen, R. W.


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
MacColl, James
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
MacDermot, Niall
Spriggs, Leslie


Edelman, Maurice
McInnes, James
Steele, Thomas


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mckay, John (Wallsend)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Stonehouse, John


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
McLeavy, Frank
Stones, William


Evans, Albert
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Fernyhough, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Swain, Thomas


Finch, Harold
Mahon, Simon
Swingler, Stephen


Fitch, Alan
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Symonds, J. B.


Fletcher, Eric
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taverne, D.


Filler, Maurice
Manuel, Archie
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mapp, Charles
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Forman, J. C.
Marsh, Richard
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mason, Roy
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mayhew, Christopher
Thornton, Ernest


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Mellish, R. J.
Tomney, Frank


Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, J. J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce
Warbey, William


Greenwood, Anthony
Milne, Edward
Weitzman, David


Grey, Chares
Mitchison G. R.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
Monslow, Walter
White, Mrs. Eirene







Whitlock, William
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Wigg, George
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Wilkins, W. A.
Winterbottom, R. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Willey, Frederick
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.



Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Woof, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Dr. Broughton and Mr. Redhead.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the intention of Her Majesty's Government to respect the same principle of freedom of communications in the household delivery service as applies to the postal services generally.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH LION FILM COMPANY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

7.21 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: If I may use the language of show business, tonight we are presenting another thrilling instalment in the sensational serial, "The Tale of British Lion". It has a star-studded cast. The public has had an ample selection of both heroes and villains, but this episode is directed by an entirely new director. I refer to the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade.
We now have a very different situation from that which existed on 20th December, when you, Mr. Speaker, kindly allowed us to have a short debate on the Christmas Adjournment, and when we had the Parliamentary Secretary at the Box and he, poor fellow, was entirely unable to tell the House what was to happen to British Lion. He could not give us any information. He was not able to give us any satisfaction as to terms or conditions. In fact, he seemed to know little about the Government's intentions. Therefore, my hon. Friends and I are of the opinion that it is only right that we should use this opportunity to ask for a very much clearer statement from Her Majesty's Government of what they propose to do.
Had things just been allowed to ride, and had there been no debate on 20th December, it appears to us that by now there would probably have been a completely tied-up package; the whole of the firm would have been sold, as far as we can tell, without any conditions being imposed, to the first person who came along—rather an "old pals" act—and we

would have had no opportunity of finding out what was to be done.
We disagree with the Government on both the principle and on the way in which they have handled the matter, because even after 20th December we were able to read, in The Times of 3rd January, that the first bidder was Mr. Sydney Box. I want to make it clear that in anything I say I do not wish to be derogatory to Mr. Sydney Box—I am criticising Her Majesty's Government—but it seems odd that on 3rd January The Times was able to report that Mr. Box had received the detailed terms on which British Lion was to be sold, and also that he was able to say, in the Sunday Times, two days later:
By normal City practice, the Finance Corporation cannot ethically go back on their offer to me.
In spite of these statements, only last week I had a reply from the right hon. Gentleman to the effect that the legal advisers of the Board of Trade and the National Film Finance Corporation were engaged upon working out the terms which apparently had not seemed necessary to them before 3rd January.
It was since that date that the right hon. Gentleman himself came into the picture—if I might put it in that way—and took personal responsibility for seeing various people in the film industry, a large number of whom had made it clear that they were far from satisfied with what appeared to be about to happen to the affairs of this extremely interesting and, by this time, prosperous company.
I should say at the outset that a certain amount of personal mud-slinging has taken place. Although I am not holding any special brief for the directors of British Lion, I should like to remind hon. Members on both sides of the House who might have it in mind to say critical things about them that on 22nd January, 1959—just five years ago—the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers), at that time a Minister in the Board of Trade, when referring to these very gentlemen, said:
I personally should like to acknowledge a debt to these people who agreed to give up


their previous interests and join British Lion at considerable risk to themselves and their own reputations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 22nd January, 1959; Vol. 598, c. 554.]
I say that at the outset because much has been said in criticism of the way in which the contract has worked out.
Let there be no misunderstanding; when that contract was made the persons concerned, on both sides, were of the opinion that it was a very risky business. Therefore, we should be quite clear that the considerable success which has attended the efforts of British Lion Films Limited since that time is to be attributed to the work, enterprise, initiative, and considerable vitality of those directors. The fact that the relationship between them and the National Film Finance Corporation—both chairman and managing director—has not always been of the happiest or easiest does not detract from the real achievements of British Lion.
My hon. Friends and I object in the strongest possible terms to the declared intention of Her Majesty's Government to sell British Lion 100 per cent. to a private buyer. We are by no means the only ones who object to this. Large sections of those who have any knowledge of the film industry have objected. We have the Federation of British Film Makers—an organisation which represents the independent producers—the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association, which is far from being a Left-wing body, and we have the unions. Privately, we even have some leading directors of the circuits, who do not wish to go on record but who are emphatic in their private opinions that it would be a good thing if there were some continuing participation in British Lion. Lastly, although the right hon. Gentleman did not wait for it, we have the opinion of the Films Council, which is there to advise the right hon. Gentleman on these matters.
I am in a difficult position, because I am a member of that Council. Normally its decision are not published except in the form of an annual report. On the other hand, it would be unrealistic not to refer to the advice which by now, as everyone knows, has been tendered to the right hon. Gentleman. It was the opinion of the Council that some public participation would have been desirable.
Why is there this wide range of opinion in favour of some degree of public participation? It is because those of us who know anything about the industry do not believe that a purely privately-owned company can remain independent in the present monopolistic state of the industry. I know all the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman can adduce but if he had been prepared to wait and to say, "For the time being we will continue some public stake in this," and had done something about the monopolistic state of the industry, it would have been another matter. But he is not yet in a position to do anything.
One has only to look at past history to realise that the chances of a completely privately-owned distribution firm remaining generally independent in the present state of the industry is very slim. Six years ago, there were seven independent distributors. Now there is only one, and that is British Lion. One has it on record that the present directors, after six years' successful experience, to quote from one of their documents,
are convinced that the company's special rôle in the industry could not be maintained if the Board were responsible only to private investors.
They are convinced from their experience that the kind of pressure which can be exercised directly or indirectly will make it virtually impossible for those who are concerned only with commercial considerations and not with considerations of the public interest to maintain their independence Why should they be concerned with the public interest if they are a 100 per cent. commercial firm? That would be asking a bit much. They put in private money and their responsibility in those circumstances is to their shareholders. In that case, there is no margin to allow for manoeuvre or for judgment of what would be in the public interest.
To us on this side it appears that, for what we consider to be doctrinaire reasons, the President of the Board of Trade is being quite unrealistic about the probability of genuine independence. The other day, in answering Questions in the House, the right hon. Gentleman made a point about my right hon. Friend the Leader of tae Opposition and suggested that when the National Film Finance Corporation was established, it was not


the intention of the Labour Government that it should engage directly in matters of production or distribution. When, however, one looks at the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in July, 1948, it is clear from what he said that the two reasons for establishing Government finance in film making were, first, a balance of payments question, and secondly, that stability could be introduced into independent film production. My right hon. Friend went on to say that at later date
it may be practicable for the Corporation to help in financing other experiments in methods of production and distribution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1948; Vol. 454, c. 587.]
It was clear that this was intended to be a flexible instrument which could be adapted to the changing needs of the cinema industry.
We all know very well that the situation in the industry has changed considerably since 1948. It is no fault necessarily of the monopoly interests concerned, but is an historical progression, that the pressures of monopoly in a relatively declining industry have intensified. We believe, therefore, that there is the strongest possible case for maintaining a public stake in the company.
The other reason which has been advanced, apart from the doctrinaire one, for selling outright has been that the National Film Finance Corporation is in need of money and that, therefore, it must realise its capital assets to obtain current finance. This, surely, is a most unstatesmanlike way of proceeding. If the Government were serious in their concern for the film industry, why, for instance, did the National Film Finance Corporation, as can be seen from its report, have to wait several months before it could get back the £591,000 paid over by British Lion last spring and which the Corporation did not get its hands upon until well into the summer? The worst possible time for the Corporation was when the President of the Board of Trade was Chief Whip in charge of Government business and owing to the mismanagement of their business in 1957, there was a period when the powers of the Corporation lapsed entirely because the Government had not caught up with the necessary legislation.
In paragraphs 27 to 29 of its last available report, the National Film Finance Corporation makes a strong case for an increase in the money available to it because of the changing conditions in the industry. I do not wish to go into that particularly, but I repeat that in our view, if the Government are serious about assisting British film production, to make the National Film Finance Corporation sell its capital assets is not the most statesmanlike way to go about things.
I have said enough to make plain our general attitude towards the sale and I should like, therefore, to come to the other main point concerning British Lion, on which, I hope, we will have enlightenment from the President of the Board of Trade: that is, the conditions and safeguards which he proposes to establish. Even on the Government policy of outright sale, we have had the assurances of the Minister that there will be certain conditions and safeguards. Mr. Terry, of the National Film Finance Corporation, said that they were to be published tomorrow, but I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will at least do us the courtesy of giving them to us tonight. I hope, therefore, that he will give a straight answer to some of the questions which I wish to put to him.
First, are all the conditions to be published and made public so that every bidder will know precisely what they are and there will be no question of slanting them as between one bidder and another? This is extremely important. Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that another recommendation of the Cinematograph Films Council will be observed, namely, that it shall be a condition of sale that, whoever buys British Lion, should he at any time wish to dispose not only of his entire interest, but of any part in it, either in shares or in capital assets—in particular, Shepperton Studios—shall give the National Film Finance Corporation the first option of buying either the shares or the property? This does not necessarily mean that the Corporation would wish to exercise that option—it might say that it was not necessary—but it is important to have this pre-emption clause written into any contract of sale.
I have mentioned Shepperton Studios. We have been told at various times that


their maintenance for film production would be a requirement, but as we have had so many obiter dicta from Mr. John Terry I prefer to have it from the Minister. We were told that Shepperton Studios would have to be maintained provided that they did not show a loss. It is easy to manufacture a loss—there is nothing simpler—or one might have a real loss. It might, nevertheless, be in the public interest that Shepperton Studios should be maintained as studios for film production—I am not saying that there should not also be television production, which there has been—that they should not be sold off, for example, to property developers and that this should be specifically included in any conditions of sale.
I wish to ask one or two questions about the criteria to be observed and not the legal formulæ. We have been told from time to time that whoever is to be regarded as the successful bidder must show the necessary financial strength. Obviously, he must be able to find the fixed purchase price; it is not an auction, but a valuation. Clearly, any suitable person must have the possibility of further resources, because it is no good merely buying the company; one must also be able to help to finance further production. Is anything specific being laid down as a condition for this, or is it simply a matter for subjective judgment—one trusts at least by the President of the Board of Trade, and not just by the National Film Finance Corporation?
Then we are told that those concerned must have "skill in management". No one could quarrel with that in general terms, but I am extremely anxious about a more particular aspect. "Skill in management" can mean more than one thing. It can mean skill in financial management, which is very proper and necessary, but it can also mean judgment of films and film production. This is where a great deal of the anxiety lies. It is extremely important if British Lion is to fulfil its proper function that it should not only have financial stability, which clearly is desirable, but that it shall be in the hands of people who will bring confidence to the live, vigorous British producers, people by whom they are prepared to be judged. If this fails and if it is handed over to someone for

whose judgment they have very little respect, serious damage can be done. The Minister is looking worried, but he has got himself into this position.

The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Heath): indicated dissent.

Mrs. White: If the right hon. Gentleman is not worried he should be, because he has a difficult choice to make.
Another point which has been raised is the connection with existing circuits. I quite agree that "connection" is a difficult word. Obviously one has some concern if one merely books a film with a circuit. That is not what we mean. We are tremely anxious that there should be true independence of the existing circuits; in other words, that there should not be interlocking interests which would bring British Lion into the orbit of the existing circuits.
If that happened there would be no point in this whole operation. We are also concerned that British Lion should remain in British ownership. This is not that we are being jingoistic. There is, after all, considerable American finance now available for British film-making. There is no reason why that should be extended by selling British Lion to American interests. I hope very much that British Lion will remain British.
We also hope that before coming to any decision the Minister will obtain from anyone who is being seriously considered a complete declaration of his interests, not merely in film production or distribution, but also in television or theatrical agencies, because there are these interlocking interests in the world of entertainment. Those who know anything about it are most anxious that the monopoly over people as well as over money and cinemas should not be extended.
It is most important that before coming to a decision—I repeat that it is not an easy one—the Minister should take all these factors into consideration, because we believe them to be of the greatest importance for healthy British film production. I think it only right, without mentioning any names, because one does not want to be personal, to put on record the considerations which


we know from our knowledge of the industry and people working in it are in the minds of producers, stars, actors, other distributors, and so on.
I want to say a word or two about the more general state of the industry. It is largely because there are anxieties about the position in the British filmmaking industry in general that we are particularly anxious about what is likely to happen to British Lion. I am not pretending for a moment that the right or wrong decision over it will make all the difference to the future of the British production industry, but it can make a great deal of difference. On the other hand, there are other even more important matters which need the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and on which we ought to be told tonight what his attitude is. As he knows, one of the most baffling problems in the film industry at the moment is the increasing booking power of the two circuits and the diminution of independent exhibition, and thereby the diminution of outlets for independent producers.
The proposal has been made, and was endorsed by the Cinematograph Films Council, that an attempt should be made to see whether some third booking force could be established in the film industry. Recently the right hon. Gentleman has said a great deal about monopoly, the desirability of competition, the wind of change and so on. Has he brought that about in the film industry? If he could solve that problem I should have a great deal of respect for him. He is here confronted with a very difficult monopoly situation. It seems that the Cinematograph Films Council has advised him that it believes something could be done, but, apart from making a few technical proposals, it has failed to make detailed recommendations about how this could be carried out. In effect, the Council has passed it over to the Board of Trade.
I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is considering having a further inquiry into this matter. As a member of the sub-committee of the Films Council, I think we did a useful job in a relatively restricted sphere. I do not think we were capable of undertaking the sort of inquiry which would be necessary to take seriously the need for a third booking force in film exhibit-

tion I do not think the Board of Trade is capable of that either.
Mr. John Davis suggested that we needed a Beeching for the film industry. We might have rather mixed feelings about that, but there is something to be said for having a quick, although detailed, inquiry by some person outside the industry, an examination by someone who certainly is competent and wants the industry to survive and to prosper, but who is not looking over his shoulder at his own interests or his master's interests in bingo, bowling or property deals. We want someone with the kind of mind which Lord Gardiner has, with an accountant on the financial side. Unless we can get that kind of evidence it will be very difficult to see how far this serious proposal will be practicable.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman may take this point seriously because at the moment we have a great deal of complaint and allegations made by one side or the other, and they are difficult to prove one way or the other unless we have the evidence and access to figures. Real and hard evidence is needed in some of these situations. At present allegations are made by the independent producers that films are being held up. The circuits deny that, but in fact there have been one or two films which were held up and which are proving reasonably successful. The gravamen of the charge is not so much that they are held up but that other films—American-financed films for the most part—have been allowed preference and better booking potential although they are inferior films, not only aesthetically but financially.
This needs to be brought into the open and examined. When I say it should be brought into the open, I do not necessarily mean that it should be published abroad. We are told that of the 10 top-showing films in a recent period in the Rank system seven were British. Of the lowest earning, three were British and seven were American. That was the proportion in reverse. In A.B.C. the figures were similar. This adds validity to the suggestion that the two circuits are so closely allied with American interests that British film producers are not kept out, but are not


given the kind of terms to which their quality entitles them.
Our case is straightforward. We believe that there should be public participation in British Lion. We wish to know what the safeguards are so that we can judge whether they are adequate or not. We think that if the Government are serious about British film production they should strengthen both the board and the finances of the National Films Finance Corporation. There is a very strong case for an independent inquiry to examine adequately the proposal for a third booking force. Meanwhile, we hope very much that, whatever decision the Minister comes to on the future ownership of British Lion, he will not shatter the confidence of the live, vigorous, creative young British film-makers by making a choice which would put them in thrall to mediocrity, to foreign finance or to interests whose real concern is not with film-making at all, but with other moneymaking ventures.
Unless we can feel satisfied on all these points, we shall feel obliged to divide the House at the end of this debate.

7.50 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Heath): The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has made it quite plain that she and her hon. Friends are entirely opposed to the Government selling British Lion.
The hon. Lady started by saying that had it not been for the adjournment debate just before Christmas this company would undoubtedly have been sold. All the arrangements would have been tied up, and it would have been sold without conditions and without anybody knowing anything about it. There is no justification whatever for that remark—absolutely none. Any arrangements for the sale of British Lion must have been given to the House and made public. It has always been the intention that the independence of British Lion should be maintained, although British Lion might be sold. I hope that I have made that absolutely plain.
The hon. Lady said that she objected to the sale of British Lion and accused those of us who are responsible for the National Film Finance Corporation of

being doctrinaire. She gave absolutely no reasons why she objected to the sale of British Lion, with the exception of the question of the capability of independence, and with that I wish to deal in some detail. I hope that for her part she is not taking a doctrinaire view about this and saying that the Government must remain in British Lion even though there are ways of maintaining its independence. That is the crux of the argument on which we are engaged in this debate.
I should like to give some of the background to this matter because the hon. Lady has mentioned it. When it comes to the question whether the Government ought to remain in British Lion, in the way that she wishes, or whether it should be sold, one should ask oneself; what is the purpose of the Government being connected with the film industry at all? The purpose was very clearly set out in 1949 in the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Act, which set up the National Film Finance Corporation.
Its purpose was then set out quite clearly. It was to make loans for the financing of film production or distribution. That was the position which the present Leader of the Opposition defended in the House. I have looked up what he said at the time. I think that it bears repeating. He said:
The scheme set out in the Bill starts from three points: First, we consider it essential that working capital must be found to enable the industry to carry out the production programme of which it is capable. Secondly, I think it is necessary to affirm that the industry's financing must be on an entirely self-liquidating basis. There must be no question of a subsidy for film production. Thirdly, that the special emergency arrangements proposed here should be temporary, and that in a resonable period when the industry has built itself up again and established confidence in itself it should be able to float itself free of the special arrangements and revert to more normal methods of financing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 2186]
That was the basis on which the Government provided money for the film industry. As the hon. Lady knows, there was never any intention that it should go into a company engaged in production and distribution. I will come later to the question whether the circumstances have so greatly changed that this is the only way of dealing with this new circumstance.
As I explained to the House on 16th January, the Government got into British


Lion, as one might say, by accident. The reason is also well known, that having lent the present British Lion's predecessor about £3 million, which it had lost, they acquired the firm as the only way of saving anything from the wreck. The loan of £3 million had been authorised from 1948 to 1950 because at that time the cinema was the main entertainment of the public. Its screens were dominated by American films that involved a dollar trade which we could not at that time afford, so British film production had to be increased and the old British Lion, which was the main distributor for British films, had to be kept alive.
After the loss of the loan a Receiver and Manager was put into the old firm, which was then wound up, and the new company, with £569,000 new capital contributed by the National Film Finance Corporation, began its operation in 1955. Then the National Film Finance Corporation repeatedly said that it was its intention to return the company to private hands, as soon as it was prosperous enough to attract private investment. This was made clear in the annual reports for the years ended 31st March, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1962.
Therefore, the position of the National Film Finance Corporation has been consistent. The Government have also made it clear that they endorsed this policy that when a suitable occasion arose it should be returned to private hands and should be able to attract private investment. There has never been any question, so far as I understand it, from either side of the House, of using Government money to subsidise the film industry.
The question is: is this the time at which British Lion should be returned wholly to private enterprise? The view of Her Majesty's Government is that the reversion of its ownership to the National Film Finance Corporation, which came about before Christmas because of the use of the options, provides a suitable opportunity for this to happen. The hon. Lady asked whether it would not be possible to hold on to this company until some action had been taken either on the Film Council's report or on the general question of monopolies, but I do not believe that

what would be an interim arrangement—if that is what she really proposes—while action is begun about monopolies, would be a good thing for the company or for the health of the British film industry.
Therefore, the question that we have to examine is whether or not this is a suitable occasion for British Lion to be returned to private enterprise and to raise private capital, at the same time maintaining its independence. Our view is that it is.
The hon. Lady quite rightly, if I may say so, paid tribute to the five executive directors of the company, and I thoroughly endorse that. The story of their success has already been told, and I related it in the statement I made to the House in January. The company was in the doldrums at the end of 1957, when the five executive directors were appointed. There was a sale to them then of the £9,000 worth of deferred shares and, in 1961, the option arrangements were made so that they could carry on the management for the further period of three years.
It was these option arrangements that enabled them to realise in cash the results of their good management. I believe, also, that they have made certain sacrifices for the good of the company—in the means of production of their own films, in the fees they took, and in other ways—and they have reaped the rewards of their initiative and enterprise, their skill in management, and the sacrifices they were prepared to make.
I told the House that the five executive directors had, between them, realised the sum of £795,000. At the same time, I should like to emphasise the financial aspects of the arrangement for the Government. The Government have recovered their investment of some £590,000 which was put into the company; in other words that has gone back to the N.F.F.C. The Government will also realise the £795,000 on their own £9,000 of shares. We must, therefore, look fairly at the return to the N.F.F.C. and the Government, in addition to the return to the directors who have been working in the company for this period.
I was asked why the sale of British Lion should take place when the company is prosperous. It is true that,


the announcement having been made—in accordance, again, with the former policy of the Leader of the Opposition—that it should be returned to private enterprise, attempts were made to sell the company between 1957 and 1959, when it was not prosperous, and, in fact, in one year when it was making a very heavy loss. It then attracted no worthwhile bids of any kind, and it was not possible to sell it. The fact is that now the company has been able to show that it is successful there are seven groups who are buyers in the market for that company. That endorses the view that, if the company is to be returned to private enterprise, this is a suitable occasion on which that should happen.
Let me turn to the general question, and the reasons for returning British Lion to private enterprise. The fact is that British film distribution is a highly individual and speculative business, and is bound to remain so. In our view, it is not one in which a Government should normally participate. The taxpayer is already financing, and will continue to finance, film production through the National Film Finance Corporation. That, I believe, is a justifiable procedure and one which we have carried on during the term of this Government. I do not believe that the industry can reasonably expect more public money by way of a permanent investment in British Lion, nor do I think it a suitable means of investing public money.
Secondly, as I have already explained, the ownership of British Lion is an accidental matter, and it has always been the intention that the company should return to private hands when possible.
But, thirdly, we believe that it is for the good of the industry that it should stand on its own feet. Great changes are taking place today. The full impact of television—possibly, of pay-television—on film making has yet to be felt. The making of films for cinemas will continue to enjoy very substantial support by means of the Eady levy, which increases British producers' commercial returns in the home market by about 60 per cent., by the screen quota, and by finance from the N.F.F.C. This is the

contribution which the Government and the taxpayer make to the film industry.
I also believe that the ownership of British Lion, subject to conditions that I shall mention a little later, by enterprising private interests is the best equipment that it can have for facing these changes. It will also have the advantage that it will bring substantial new private funds into the industry. The hon. Lady and, I know, some of her hon. Friends, dismiss this rather lightly, but I believe that it is important that these resources should be brought from private sources into the film industry, and as the N.F.F.C. has its own source of finance, which the Government arrange, this, will enable, as the hon. Lady has suited, the N.F.F.C. to use for the industry's benefit such of the receipts from British Lion as may be necessary in the light of the discussions I shall be having with it.
Let me turn to the main argument produced by the hon. Lady—the independence of British Lion. She has said that the Government's stake should be retained in the company because only in this way can the company's continued independence be ensured. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Lady has said, that many of those who came to see me emphasised this point but, above all, they emphasised the fact that they wanted to see the continued independence of British Lion and that is the objective to ensure. In that case, we are both agreed about the desirability of maintaining the company's independence, but I believe that the independence of British Lion depends on the right selection from among those groups now seeking to buy it, and upon the conditions that we propose to stipulate for its purchaser.
Perhaps I may now say something about these points. The hon. Lady asked me a number of questions, and I think that she will find that they are covered by the points I shall put before the House. They are the points that the N.F.F.C. will be able to place before all bidders. There is absolutely no desire that any of this should be slanted in any way—if I may say so, it was rather an unhappy thought of the hon. Lady's that that should be the case with the National Film Finance Corporation—

Mrs. White: No. With great respect, what was happening with Mr. Sydney Box before Christmas? It was not thrown open then. Negotiations had been conducted with him to the point that he believed that the National Film Finance Corporation was ethically bound to continue them. If conditions could have arisen in which he believed that that was so, surely it was not open to all, and it had not been made at all clear that that was to be the position.

Mr. Heath: At that point, which was the time of the debate, Mr. Box was the only person who had approached the Corporation, as I announced in my statement in January.

Mrs. White: But the Corporation had entered into negotiations with him.

Mr. Heath: The Corporation had authority to enter into negotiations with him, but that did not exclude its entering into negotiations with others, and that has taken place. The facts speak for themselves.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that The Times announced that the sale to Mr. Box was an accomplished fact? Although The Times is not necessarily infallible, surely that announcement was enough to arouse considerable anxiety.

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman may prefer to believe what he sees in the Press, but that has never been an accomplished fact. No sale can take place without my authority, and there is no question of reports of that kind being accepted as the truth.
Let me now come to the points that will be put to those wishing to purchase the company—

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Is it not true that Mr. John Terry said, and was quoted by the Daily Telegraph as saying, that
… unless and until these negotiations fail"—
that is, the negotiations with Mr. Sydney Box's group:
we are not offering the business elsewhere. We are not auctioning British Lion"?

Mr. Heath: I cannot answer for what Mr. Terry said, or for newspaper

reports. I am answerable for the authority I give for the sale of this company, and that is what I am putting to the House.

Mrs. White: Can we get this quite clear? It is perfectly plain from what Mr. Terry is reported as having said that he was under the impression that he was enabled to negotiate, and there was no suggestion at that time that he had to find out from the Board of Trade what conditions were acceptable. At what point did the Board of Trade tell him that he had to go to the Department, that his conditions would be vetted, and that it would not all be tied up?

Mr. Heath: It has always been the case that any proposal for the sale of the company must come to me. There can never have been any question about that, and that was fully recognised by the Chairman and by the Secretary of the National Film Finance Corporation. They were absolutely clear about it, and there can be no question about that whatever.
I now wish to put before the House the points that are to be put to the groups that wish to purchase the company. It is intended that, probably by the device of holding a single special share in the company, the N.F.F.C. should retain certain rights. These rights will include the right to veto the company's voluntary liquidation, the right to veto the sale of its undertaking, the right to veto the repayment of any capital to shareholders and any disposal of its interest in Shepperton Studios Ltd., except in defined circumstances which would be in the judgment of the special shareholder.
It will also be ensured, probably by the same device, that a sum equivalent to any tax relief enjoyed by the company as a result of the use of the present accrued tax loss will revert to the National Film Finance Corporation. The Corporation will also have the right to nominate a director to the board so that the Corporation and the Government will be fully apprised at all times of the conduct of its affairs.
These provisions, which will be permanently effective, should ensure that no purchaser of British Lion shares can


strip it of its assets or do anything but continue to operate it as a going concern. It will also mean that no cash made from an authorised sale of any assets can be removed from the business without the agreement of the N.F.F.C.
In addition, the purchasers will be required to give positive assurances to the National Film Finance Corporation that British Lion will continue to provide the facilities for independent producers which it now gives and continue to maintain an independent position.
Those are the conditions which have already been made known to the seven groups which had applied to buy British Lion by the closing date, 31st January.
The company is being offered at a price based on the independent valuation of 30th September. This is the price at which the N.F.F.C. bought out the half share of the executive directors. Therefore, there is no question of auctioning the company to the highest bidder. It means that the National Film Finance Corporation can, in referring a proposal to me, judge the other qualifications, some of which the hon. Lady mentioned, and, of course, it will be bound to take into account not only the financial strength of a group in purchasing the company, but also the resources which it will have for operating the company, according to the way it gives its undertaking.
The Corporation can also form a judgment on skill in management and film production. Also, it will be able to deal with the point the hon. Lady raised about there not being any connection with the existing circuits. I am quite certain that the Corporation has full information about those who are members of the groups and putting in applications for consideration as purchasers of the company.
I hope that that has answered the hon. Lady's questions. I have set out the situation and the means by which we wish to ensure the continued independence of British Lion.

Mr. George Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when these conditions which he has just detailed were first made known to the seven entities?

Mr. Heath: I have just said that all these conditions have been made known. I canont give the exact date. If I am given the leave of the House to say a few words later, perhaps I can give the date on which they were informed.
The N.F.F.C. has informed me that all the prospective purchasers will, in the next few days, receive an accountant's certified analysis of British Lion's financial position and the necessary legal documents embodying the conditions and assurances. There will then be reasonable Lime to study these, but, of course, as I told the House in January, speed is important. We do not wish film production to be held up. We do not want the company's staff to be left in uncertainty, and we do not want the value of the company to be in any way jeopardised.

Mr. Wigg: If the right hon. Gentleman is not sure when the conditions were made known, and he is only now telling the House that the detailed figures will be available, how does he know that, if he had really set his mind to getting as many runners as he could and on circulating all the information, the seven would not have been seventy? Or is the true picture that he started with one and has been forced only by public opinion to get seven runners instead of just Mr. Box?

Mr. Heath: Not at all. This has been publicly known, and anybody who wished could apply to the National Film Finance Corporation. As I told the House, one had to have a date by which applications should be made; it was only reasonable to fix a date and, of course, other people have considered whether or not they should form or join a group Some, naturally, have withdrawn. There are at present seven groups, and they are being given this information.

Mr. Jay: If it has been Board of Trade policy all along to make this general offer, why did the Parliamentary Secretary say nothing about it to the House in the debate on 20th December?

Mr. Heath: It was quite apparent at the time of that Adjournment debate that it was not to deal with British Lion; it was an Adjournment debate on the general film situation, was it not?

Mrs. White: No. With respect, I let officials of the right hon. Gentleman's Department know on the Monday of that week—the debate was on the Friday—that I proposed specifically to raise the matter of British Lion.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Lady will recall that this was a very early moment after the arrangement regarding the options and the opportunity given to the five existing directors to consider whether they themselves wished to exercise their second option and buy back the company. One could not expect my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to go into all the details of this question at that time.

Mrs. White: But, with respect, the five directors, according to their contract, had six months to consider their second option. They did not have six months to consider it; they had a fortnight.

Mr. Heath: There was no question of six months—

Mrs. White: They never had it.

Mr. Heath: —as far as the option was concerned. As the hon. Lady knows, the chairman of the N.F.F.C. informed the chairman of the company on 27th November of his intention because he was already convinced, as I have said, that the directors did not wish to exercise their second option, so it was quite right that the N.F.F.C. should exercise its.
I have informed the House of the details of the arrangements which are to be put to the groups. The groups will receive the accountant's certified analysis of British Lion's financial position. I hope that this matter can then be dealt with speedily.
I have referred to the arrangements for dealing with the tax loss, which does not become the property of the group buying the company. In this connection, I wish to correct a slip which I made on 30th January when, in answer to a supplementary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), I said that none of the loss had been applied before arriving at British Lion's profits in recent years. This was incorrect. What I was referring to was the proposal I have just mentioned relating to the tax loss for the future company.
The other argument used by the hon. Lady is that the Government's presence in British Lion is necessary to act as a brake on the two great circuits. This point has been made to me by many people, but I must confess that they have never been able to explain why an N.F.F.C. investment in British Lion has been effective in acting as a brake on the circuits. This is a point to which I have given great care and attention, and people have endeavoured to explain it. It may be that it is a psychological point. I do not know. However, it is a matter with which I now wish to deal.
The hon. Lady has referred to the report of the Cinematograph Films Council, and she has asked me for my comments on it. She will accept that the Council has been considering this matter since the summer of 1962. Only in the last few days has it come to its final conclusions on the report. So far, these have not been formally remitted to me; I have not received them from the chairman of the Council. Therefore, to ask me to give my comments on the sub-committee's report and on the recommendations is, to say the least, premature. This is not to say that I am not most anxious to deal with the matter as speedily as possible.
I have noted the suggestion of the hon. Lady that there ought now to be a further inquiry into some of the questions with which the Council has dealt. Naturally, I shall give them the fullest consideration. I cannot tonight commit the Government to doing so. What we shall do is to give the fullest consideration to the report and the Council's comments upon it in order to deal with the question of monopoly.
I understand that the Council has said that it would like more competition brought into the industry, and it wishes me to examine the feasibility of this. As I understand it, what the Council says falls far short of finding an abuse of monopoly. I think that this was really what the hon. Lady had in mind when she said that it was very difficult, on many occasions, to find the hard facts on which to form a judgment on some of the accusations which were made. Again, she is quite right. The problem is that we are dealing with this situation in what is still a steeply declining industry.
I shall give the House just two or three figures. During the last 10 years,


including 1963, admissions to cinemas have fallen by about 70 per cent. The number of cinemas has fallen by 51 per cent., and the number owned by the two major circuits has fallen by 34 per cent.
The first assurance I can give is that we shall pay the greatest attention to the recommendations of the Cinematograph Films Council on the question of monopolistic practices. My second assurance is that if the Government's presence is important, the Government's presence will still remain through the National Film Finance Corporation. As I have said, they have a member on the board. They have rights which will be enshrined in the special share. They have a firm arrangement there. Also, the National Film Finance Corporation will continue to have a stake in a large proportion of British independent film production. That is what the Corporation is there for. It will retain that, and it is a very important stake indeed.
During the five years to March, 1963, the Corporation has been responsible for financial support to 57 first-feature films. During the same period British Lion directly invested money in 11 films. It is, therefore, clear that because of this stake at the production stage, the Corporation has the strongest incentive to resist any possible discrimination against independent production by the so-called duopoly … or monopoly, if hon. Members prefer so to describe it—because of its investment in independent film production anyhow and the scale on which it is doing it. Therefore, those who are anxious for psychological reasons, which I respect, or for reasons of artistic integrity, which, again, I respect, or whatever the reason, think that there should be this presence, will have it in the form of the National Film Finance Corporation.
I take this opportunity of thanking all of those who have given me the benefit of their advice in the last few weeks, covering almost the whole spectrum of the film industry. I found the discussions extraordinarily interesting and, indeed, fascinating. I appreciate the trouble they took to brief me on the intricacies of what I think even the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East must agree is a highly complex industry. I hope that they will feel that in the arrangements which I have just set out for the sale of

British Lion we have taken note of many of the suggestions which they put forward. I hope that they will agree that in this way, having reached a conclusion now, the company can best serve the British film industry by returning to private enterprise. I repeat that we have taken note of and embodied the suggestions they made.
The hon. Lady mentioned the advice that I received from the Cinematograph Films Council. I noted it. I read in the Press that it was by a narrow majority. Of course I pay attention to the advice. I am grateful to the Council for its thinking about this problem. It is seldom in the past that my predecessors have not felt themselves able to accept most of its advice, but in general it advises about matters which are internal matters for the film industry. On this occasion it has advised about a matter on which there are wide opinions and in which considerations of the taxpayers' interests are also involved.
I hope, therefore, that I have been able to explain to the House why we believe it is right that British Lion should be returned to private enterprise and why we believe that this is a suitable occasions for it to happen. I hope, also, that I have submitted to the House reasonable arrangements for ensuring the future independence of British Lion and arranging that it should continue to be of service to independent British film production, which is what we all want.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: I cannot help feeling that no one on these benches and very few who work in the industry will be reassured by what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. He has belatedly produced a series of conditions for the sale of British Lion. He speaks now of "conditions". In the Adjournment debate his Parliamentary Secretary spoke of assurances, saying:
The N.F.F C. has agreed with my right hon. Friend that it will be a condition of sale of British Lion that the purchaser will give firm assurances that the facilities which the company now makes available to independent producers will continue to be made available to them, and that the company will continue to be operated as a third force in the industry."…[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1963; Vol. 686, c. 1692.]


That last is now made a "condition," but I do not believe that such a condition, that British Lion in private hands shall secure the independence of independent film producers—even under the conditions which have operated in the past—is enforceable. Looking at the list of bidders for the company, and thinking of the company in private hands, and taking into account what has been said about the guarantee of a Government presence in the full sense, I cannot feel that those who will own British Lion in future can be trusted to operate the company under the same conditions as provided some security in the past.
Listening to the right hon. Gentleman, I was not surprised that his whole test of the value of the transaction was what its profitability was likely to be. It is extraordinary that in the whole of this discussion on the film industry the only test has been profitability, when what we are really concerned with is a great national asset, an ingredient of our national culture and something which concerns not only the livelihood of many thousands of people in the industry but also an important art form.
Mr. John Davis, of Ranks, has described what he considers to be the function of the cinema. He says that that function—I am summarising—is simply to provide entertainment. I can imagine that if that is the sole standard by which the value of the cinema is to be judged, it is not surprisng that the cinema as a whole has fallen into the hands of tycoons, accountants and unsmiling distributors who lunch daily at Les Ambassadeurs. That kind of person is not the person to be entrusted with the cinema as an art form.
For these reasons, I feel that we should examine the whole basis of this transaction, which has been carried out in an indecent haste, and seems to me to be a rare example of a shotgun marriage in which the bride rather than the bridegroom has been prodded to the altar. We have the example of British Lion, unwilling and reluctant, as expressed in the words of its statement. It is unwilling and reluctant first to be taken over and then to be sold in the form projected by the Minister. Now, after the extraordinary situation in

which, first of all, it seemed as if the whole matter was cut and dried and the company was going to be handed over to Mr. Box, the Minister belatedly comes along with a set of conditions which I believe to be unrealisable and unenforceable; and now we have the spectacle of another six bidders suddenly appearing on the scene.
I am inclined to offer a few observations on some of the bidders, but I will refrain from doing so because I do not want to be prejudicial even in this situation. But I think it would be proper for me to quote what Mr. John Bloom is alleged to have said. When the terms of sale were announced, he is reported to have said that he could not resist the temptation. I can well believe that to be the case, because there is a great temptation in the sale of this company. I am absolutely convinced that the company has a large quantity of concealed assets. It is a company which has great resources. This is illustrated even by the price at which the directors were paid out.
It is a company which because it has, in a sense, a monopoly of independence is likely to have a very great future. If those who acquire the company are going to apply strictly material and commercial standards of profitability, which the Minister seems to admire so very much, I can see that in an affluent age and at a time when the cinema may once again be in a period of great expansion, this is a company which is certain to attract the attention of the take-over bidders, of the people who have become so expert at diagnosing the assets hidden within a firm and estimating its profitability, the people who are completely indifferent to the cultural values with which, among other matters, the cinema should be concerned.
No one has spoken in all these debates of what the cinema means to the nation as an art form. If one were to translate the concept of a cinema into terms of books, how improper it would seem if the only publishing house to remain independent were to be sold in such form and on such conditions that one could be absolutely certain that those who were going to exploit it would merely exploit it in the interests of profitability and if the test, in the words of Mr. John Davis, were merely going to be


the entertainment value of books and they were completely indifferent to the artistic enterprise and cultural purpose of those concerned with books and the cinema as media for the arts.
Among those who are bidding for British Lion I see that leading one of the consortia is the name of a distinguished American producer. I certainly would not be in favour of nationalism in the arts, but I believe that it has been a basic concern of all those who have been interested in British films ever since 1926, when the Imperial Conference first stated that to produce a thriving British industry was a concern not only of Britain but of the Commonwealth as a whole. Ever since that date it has been recognised that it is desirable to have an indigenous British film industry and that it should be assisted and cultivated by some form of protection appropriate to the times.
Since we have had the Eady levy, we have had the incursion, welcome in many respects, of certain American film-makers in Britain. They have done extremely well and have provided employment, and for these reasons I welcome the part that they played. On the other hand, in the interest both of encouraging domestic talent and a domestic film industry, I think that it would be extremely undesirable if this third force, as it has been called, were to come under American domination, or any other domination from abroad, which would have the effect of limiting and restricting in any way the cultivation of native talent in Britain.
It may be said, to take a purely accountancy view, that if we have American interests in British films we shall attract American capital which will be ploughed back into British films and this will be all to the good of British employment. Heaven knows that at this time many of my friends in the film industry are deeply concerned precisely on this point.
The Minister talked about decline in the industry. I am concerned about increasing unemployment among filmmakers, not film producers as such. I am thinking of the cameramen, actors and actresses and all those who are directly concerned with the actualities of film production. There is a great

decline in employment among them. We are concerned today, therefore, not only with the sale of a company but with an important economic element in the life of the country.
If there were an American interest it might be argued that this would provide employment. I would not be against that, if only on the condition that there was no alternative means by which employment could be stimulated from our own resources. The Minister said that the Government are not in the film industry and do not want to be in it and that for that reason they are concerned with selling British Lion, but I believe that the Government ought to be in the film industry.

Mr. Heath: With great respect, I defined the part which I thought the Government ought to take in the film industry and that was the part agreed by both sides of the House, as exemplified in the N.F.F.C., which makes loans for the production and distribution of films. That is different from being in the company which should do it.

Mr. Edelman: I said that. The right hon. Gentleman is understandably applying a purely financial test as the preposition in the film industry. I believe that we have to find something more than a purely financial test. I think that there must be something more than a purely financial participation. Just as we have areas of patronage which are highly desirable—the British Council, the Arts Council, and bodies of that kind—so I believe that in the film industry, which is concerned not simply with the medium of entertainment but the medium of culture, the Government should have a much more direct and active interest.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to revert to the statement of Mr. John Davis of what he considers to be the desiderata of film production, and he will see from that that he regards one of them as being culture in the widest sense. If British Lion is to be sold to a purely commercial interest whose standards will simply be the standards of profitability, then indeed I think that the British film industry's concern for the film as an art medium will certainly die. It may linger on; it may indeed form part even of an expanding medium


of pure entertainment; but in terms of national culture, in terms of projecting a picture of the nation, I believe that the sale of British Lion to a purely commercial interest will do great damage.

Mr. Heath: Is the hon. Member suggesting that British Lion is being devoted purely to the purposes of the film as an art medium? I gave the figures and demonstrated very clearly indeed that its performance had been one of profitability in which it had been eminently successful.

Mr. Edelman: I am not suggesting for a moment that there is anything inconsistent in a film company of any kind being concerned with its medium as an art medium and being concerned with its products as a medium of profitability. I do not think that there is any inevitable inconsistency between the two. There need not be. What I am arguing, and perfectly clearly, is that a company which is primarily, indeed exclusively, concerned with its commercial interest is a company which is exclusively concerned with profitability and cannot be a company which is prepared to tolerate experiment, prepared to tolerate the enterprising young producer who wants to try to produce a new kind of film.
I do not believe that is so, and even if it were argued that in the past the operations of British Lion have been so restricted as not to have produced work of that kind—which I do not suggest for one moment, but if it were—I still say that looking at the future of the film industry from the accountancy figures which seem so to preoccupy the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, looking towards any possibility of an expanding film industry in which there will be room and opportunity for the young men and women in the film industry to exercise their talents, to experiment, do the sort of work which is certainly not being done in the industry today and which I say the right hon. Gentleman should consider it his duty to encourage—

Mr. Heath: If the hon. Member keeps on regarding me as dealing with this only on an accountancy basis perhaps

he will recollect that British Lion in three years dealt with 11 films and the N.F.F.C. 57 films. I said the N.F.F.C. did it in five years. It was three. Those 11 films of British Lion for the most part were very successful, and it is the N.F.F.C. which has been financing films of the kind which the hon. Gentleman wants to be encouraged which has been making losses.

Mr. Edelman: I gladly accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I do not believe for one moment that it influences my argument, because my argument rests on a twofold basis. I am saying that finance is necessary to encourage the experimental kind of work I have been talking about, but in addition, I believe that direct participation of the Government inside British Lion to ensure that distribution and the showing of the films do take place is of equal importance and of equal validity.
What is the use of encouraging production of a film with the present monopolistic situation in which there are difficulties and delays in showing films? I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question about this on an earlier occasion and his reply was inevitably vague. As everyone knows, the truth is that Rank and A.B.C. are primarily—perhaps I am using a mild word—concerned as a vertical monopoly in looking after their own films and their own interests. Rank and A.B.C. give the best showing times for their films. They give preferential treatment to their films. Although they are theoretically forbidden—this is why some of the conditions enunciated by the right hon. Gentlmeman are unenforceable—to pencil in dates for future showings on their circuits, there is no doubt that they do so and deny the opportunity of showings to independent producers who are outside the so-called duopoly. If that is the established technique of Rank's, if these pencillings-in are the basis of some of its contractual relations in the exercise of its monopoly, we have to be very careful in scrutinising those to whom British Lion will be sold.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: That argument cannot be right; surely it is a non sequitur. The whole trouble today is that the present set-up cannot get the showings it wants. How on earth will it assist the problem


one way or the other whether the company is sold off to private enterprise or not? Surely, the only way to assist is to sell it to private enterprise and hope that the Government, who would be wholly independent and strengthened by the powers over monopolies that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade will bring in later this year, will have the power to enable the duopoly to give some of the support to the then created independent company. If the hon. Member would apply his mind to this point, we might do something for the future of the industry and not the past.

Mr. Edelman: The hon. Member is in error. My argument was not a non sequitur. Its whole basis was that if there is a strong Government element in British Lion, Rank and A.B.C., although they have the habit of pencilling these things in, will be much more cautious and wary about doing it because of the presence of the Government interest in British Lion. It is precisely the absence of the Government element which is likely to encourage them.
The action which the right hon. Gentleman has taken has been done hugger-mugger in a rather hole-in-the corner manner. It has been rushed through with indecent haste. Only belatedly have the conditions suddenly been produced. The whole enterprise is something of which to disapprove, not only because of its content, but because of its form.
Because of the talent which lies in the young producers, directors, actors and technicians, our film industry potentially has a great future, but the men who are concerned with the financial manipulations and combinations of the industry are throttling it. They are men who are indifferent to whether the industry as such handles cinemas, bingo halls or bowling alleys. They are concerned merely with the test of profitability, but profitability directed not to the film as a medium, not to the constructive energies of those engaged in the industry, but simply to the interests of those who have a financial stake in their company. I believe that they are men of restricted taste, guided by material values, afraid to experiment and indifferent to artistic enterprise. They are men with a limited

sense of public responsibility whose test and standard is profitability.
For these reasons, it is absolutely vital for the future of the British industry that the Government presence in a concern like British Lion, so far from being diminished and weakened as the right hon. Member has done, should be strengthened and reinforced.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I wish to be as brief as possible. I cannot agree with a large part of what the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) said. I could have understood his strictures if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade had said tonight, "I intend to deliver British Lion to an unscrupulous group of private buccaneers who will produce a few films for the benefit of the duopoly which would be designed purely for profit without any regard for merit". It does not necessarily follow that a film made for profit lacks merit, but, accepting the hon Member's assumption that it does, that is the inevitable result. Hon. Members on this side would happily have gene into the Lobby with the hon. Member if my right hon. Friend had said that; but he has not said that.
The National Film Finance Corporation will remain in existence and will continue to do a very worth-while job. British Lion, restored to private hands, will have a Government watchdog on it. Let us suppose that he is a sneak, someone who will see that if British Lion gets a lousy, raw deal from A.B.C. or Rank, or both together, will come tripping back to my right hon. Friend's office and tell him. Where is the sanction? If Rank or A.B.C. want to prevent independent producers from showing their films, there is no deliberate sanction which we can impose.
However, I should have thought that, knowing that there was the Government watchdog on the British Lion private enterprise company, Rank and A.B.C., if they thought of getting up to some nasty tricks, would think again, particularly as they know that my right hon. Friend is a monopoly hunter. He is the Minister who will produce the


blueprint, of a package deal, to streamline the Monopolies Commission and the Restrictive Practices Court. I should have thought that it would be very shortsighted of Rank and A.B.C. to behave improperly with British Lion, restored to private enterprise hands. They cannot be that stupid. If they are, my right hon. Friend could introduce legislation which would administer a thick stick very firmly on their financial behinds.
I am delighted with what my right hon. Friend said tonight. I came in a very suspicious frame of mind. That is perhaps a rather harsh thing to say, because I have a lot of respect for the integrity, intelligence and ability of my right hon. Friend to dissect even the most complicated problems, as he has shown in his handling of the Common Market negotiations. I should have thought that the film industry would hold no terrors for him. However, I say that coming, as I do, from the comparatively calm and peaceful pastures of television.
I was struck by some of the arguments which the hon. Member for Coventry, North put forward. We hear the most monstrous allegations made about the way that A.B.C. and Rank can carve up the exhibition side of the film industry; that they make it difficult for independent film producers; that there is a series of interlocking agreements with American interests; and that if Rank turns down one film A.B.C. will turn it down, too. These allegations are serious. We know that between them Rank and A.B.C. control 41 per cent. of the cinemas in this country, and they are key cinemas.
We know that the United States, where a similar situation prevailed, set about trust-busting the film empires—those vertical organisations to which the hon. Member for Coventry, North referred—and that those involved in showing a film had to sever their links with the production-distribution side of the industry.
Many of us on this side of the House feel very perturbed about the situation in this country. We will be here after the General Election to hold my right hon. Friend to it when it comes to legislation on monopolies because we feel that here

at least, from what we have heard and the allegations made, is a prima fade case for a very swift inspection of some of these dubious practices in the hope that we can get some real competition.
We would like rather stronger assurances from my right hon. Friend that he will investigate this matter speedily. But that is not the end of it. Many of us want to know who is to take over. Obviously, it cannot now be the person who makes the highest bid. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that this will not be an auction. The criteria for the decision will, therefore, be very complicated. If it is not to be an auction, in what way will the National Film Finance Corporation make up its mind as to who is to have British Lion?
This makes me at least think that a further question must be asked: who is to decide who is to take over? My right hon. Friend says that the Corporation will make a recommendation. I do not want to lay about me too widely, but I think that I can stand here without fear of contradiction when I say that there does not seem to be any independent film producer who has any confidence in the ability of the Corporation to make a very sensible choice in this matter. The independent producers do not think very much of those who run the Corporation. I will not go into personalities, but I am sure that other hon. Members will support me on that.
Perhaps one might argue that, thank goodness, the final decision will rest on the broad and capable back of my right hon. Friend, but when one recalls that the recommendation he will receive will come from the National Film Finance Corporation I wish that it had earned greater respect in the film industry, particularly among independent producers. I hope that the job of making a recommendation can be taken out of the Corporation's hands. Maybe that is impracticable, but I hope that at least the warning I have uttered, and which will be repeated by other hon. Members, will alert my right hon. Friend so that on this occasion he will be unusually perceptive.
Who is to take over? We are concerned because of the most complicated interlocking arrangements. Among the names that have been suggested there are people who are hooked up with


special television interests, others who are associated with American companies, a nd so forth. It is because we know how complicated this is that we feel that it will take a body which commands the support of the independent producers to enable many of us to accept that a sensible recommendation has been made, based on merits and proper examination.
Finally, I return to my starting point. Many of us on this side of the House and, as I judge from the silence, many hon. Members opposite were delighted to hear the various conditions which a potential buyer of British Lion will have to accept if he wishes to be given the franchise. They seem to me to be excellent conditions.
I am convinced that we shall not get to the root of the problem until we bring a breath of fresh competition into the actual circuit arrangements so that films produced under these auspices get as fair a showing as I think they ought to get. Until that is done, many films of quality will not get the sort of showing at, to use a television term, peak viewing time, to which they are undoubtedly entitled.
Because of this curious sort of smell about the film industry, many people with real talent are discouraged from entering it. There are many people in the television industry today who have left the film industry because, as the years went by, they found that it was an industry which did not put a premium on integrity. They found that the interlocking financial interests created an atmosphere which was detrimental to real talent.
I hope that before my right hon. Friend finally decides who is to own British Lion he will examine with unusual care the recommendations made to him by the N.F.F.C. If he does not agree to the suggestion that the Council should not be the arbiters my right hon. Friend should show commendable zeal in ensuring that there is a swift examination of the monopolistic practices which many people allege exist in this industry.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Harold Lever: The Minister has told the House that there is no question of subsidy in this industry, and of course if that kind

of pretence, or that measure of sincerity, were to be applied to the whole of his speech, it would be a cause for alarm. Everybody knows that since the declaration of no subsidy the industry has been continuously subsidised, and that is the purpose of the N.F.F.C. The Council has been lending public money not under commercial considerations, but without any desire to make a profit, and without even managing to safeguard its capital, still less produce an income from it.
The Council has undoubtedly acted to provide some form of subsidy for the British film industry. I deplore it as a permanent state of affairs. I think that the remedy is for the film industry not to be pauperised in this way, but that conditions should be created by the Government which make possible an industry which can be viable without this specific subsidy. It may be that when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition brought it in as an emergency measure in these terms he stated specifically that it was not intended to produce a permanent subsidy of the industry but to buy time to give the Government the opportunity of creating better conditions for film production in this industry. Time was bought, but no use was made of it, and now the Minister has the courage to tell the House that nobody is subsidising the film industry. It will be interesting to see how long the position of non-subsidy is maintained, and how long it is before the Government come back for more money.
As regards British Lion, the Minister has told us that it was never contemplated that there could be a sale without the sale coming to him for approval, but the heart of the matter is at what point does the deal come to him for approval? Is it to come to him for approval alter Mr. Terry has committed the N.F.F.C. and is bound in honour and decency to go on with the deal, or is he to come to him for approval while he is still a free agent, neither morally nor legally committed to any particular personal group?
What is widely supposed is that the N.F.F.C. is already morally committed to Mr. Box and we are going to see something in the nature of a charade to


satisfy many hon. Members who have taken a sincere interest in the matter—not exclusively Members from this side of the House, but many from the benches opposite. I hope that the Minister will pledge his honour that there no such commitment is in the mind of the Government or of the National Film Finance Corporation. This is not an eccentric supposition on my part. As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), this declaration of the position was given publicly by Mr. Terry, of the N.F.F.C. Therefore, it must be repudiated in express terms, and terms of utter sincerity.
I shall not go into the question raised by the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) about artistic merits. We are not talking about the minority cultural aspects of films. This company is concerned with mass audiences, which necessarily and inevitably, in all countries, are mainly concerned with entertainment. The minority artistic film about which my hon. Friend is talking is irrelevant to the issue that we are discussing tonight, although I share many of the views that he has expressed.
He may take consolation in the fact that nearly all the films of great artistic merit have been made by hard-faced gentlemen of a philistine character, and various individuals who very often managed to employ members of the Communist Party and nuclear disarmers to propagate extraordinary and interesting opinions among a wide sector of the public. It is not necessarily a good formula for artistic success to take a philistine and put him in charge of one's operations, but so far all the great classics of the screen have been made precisely under such auspices. My hon. Friend need not mutter in despair on the question of who will own British Lion in the immediate future.
I do not wish to comment upon individuals, but I wish that the Boulting Brothers had not missed the unique opportunity that was afforded to them when making "I'm all right, Jack"—when they caricatured so effectively and amusingly the trade union side—of incorporating in their script the happenings in the life of British Lion itself, in order to give an air of verisimilitude

to the "boss" side of the picture, which I thought was the weak side of it.

Mrs. White: They have a wonderful opportunity to make a film about the Board of Trade, which would make "Carlton Browne of the F.O" pale into insignificance.

Mr. Lever: I agree, but what everyone now wants to see is public property not being handled in the manner that private property necessarily would be. It is a delicate question, because if we say that we shall not sell property that belongs to the Government to the highest bidder it means that we are giving something away at less than its market value to a private group. It is a very delicate question.

Mr. Lubbock: The President of the Board of Trade has said that there would not be an auction, and that the price would be the same whoever bought it.

Mr. Lever: Having established the principle of not trying to secure the maximum price, it then behoves the right hon. Gentleman to see that the public gets much better value. We would prefer that British Lion remained wholly owned by the Government. We cannot really expect a Conservative Government wholeheartedly to adopt all our principles, so I act on the assumption that the Government will sell. But we expect that if they do they will be at great pains to ensure that they bring into being—if necessary by negotiation—a group of people which represents all that is most constructive in British film production, so that British Lion Films Limited will continue to be an organisation which will support, guide, finance and distribute films, possibly mainly of an entertainment character and possibly mainly with a view to their being financially viable, but still continuing to be an essential and independent force in British film production, of great value to all those who are honestly and creatively concerned with making films in this country.
It would be a disaster if the Minister were to fall short in any way of this requirement, and I hope that we shall have an explicit and sincere assurance that there will be no rigged deal and


no foregone conclusion, but that the matter is still open for genuine free negotiation.

9.5 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I entirely agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) and I will return to it in a moment.
The great concern of many people about the sale of British Lion is whether we are enacting a charade, whether the Government are morally bound to someone or not. I think that this state of uncertainty has resulted from the extraordinary way in which the National Film Finance Corporation has handled the whole affair. I am sorry for my right hon. Friend having been landed with this problem in the form in which he found it.
The background of this—I do not wish to labour all the points which have been made—is, of course, the question of monopoly, which is taken for granted by hon. Members. My right hon. Friend said that the question was not one of whether a monopoly exists, but whether an abuse of monopoly exists. The opinion is widely held among independent producers that there are abuses of a monopoly, and I should have thought that the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), with her experience on the Cinematograph Films Council, would know enough to be able to say that an abuse does exist.
I should have thought it a sufficient abuse of monopoly power that there should be restrictive agreements between the two combines, so that, in effect, the future showing of any British film is decided by two men. If that is not abuse of a monopoly, I do not know what is.
The reason we are so concerned about the future of British Lion is, as the hon. Lady pointed out, that British Lion was the last independent distributor left. British Lion was unique in that it was the only one able to break the restrictive agreement between the two combines. It was the only producer able to do any bargaining between the two. Our fear has been that if the Government money is withdrawn from British Lion without there being proper safeguards, British Lion, while it might nominally retain its independence, would certainly not retain

its robust, aggressive nature and its determination to compete, and force the two combines to compete, even to a limited extent, with each other. This is the rôle which we think that British Lion ought to play in the industry. If it abandoned that rôle it would ultimately tend to drift into the aura of one or other of the two circuits. This is the basis of the whole of our concern.
I am one who thought that the Government should retain some holding in British Lion. In my opinion, it would be wrong to sell the entire company to anyone outside. The right sort of situation—I still think that probably it would have been a better solution than that of my right hon. Friend—would have been to retain, say, a 50 per cent. holding in the company and to have offered the rest back to the present five directors, on the general understanding that they would bring in with them other independent producers; that they would broaden their board and make themselves more representative of the independent British producers. I should have thought that the better solution.
None the less, I think that my right hon. Friend has made a genuine and ingenious attempt to retain some control over the future of British Lion. I think that what he has done is on the whole good. I gave some thought to how a single director appointed by the Government to N.F.F.C. could have any possible power and I must say I did not think of this one. I think it is ingenious. I only hope that it will work.
Whether or not one can put in more veto power than is already there I should like to examine, but it still seems possible even now, in spite of the powers given to this single director, that British Lion, if the wrong choice is made in ownership, might lose its robust, independent quality and tend to get into the aura of one or other of the combines. I hope that when the director is appointed he will be someone in whom the independent producers have confidence. He should not be simply someone appointed by the present management of the N.F.F.C. in whom, as my right hon. Friend rightly pointed out, it is very difficult to find any independent producer who has any confidence at all.
I should like to underline what my right hon. Friend said about the N.F.F.C.,


because it is extremely important. He has to rely upon the present management of the Corporation for his advice. Perhaps a few quotations from the chairman and managing director of the Corporation without any comment from me will simply illustrate why the independent producers do not have any confidence in the present Corporation. For example, on 20th December Mr. John Terry is reported in the Daily Cinema as stating that the five directors are no longer shareholders although they will still manage the company. On 23rd December, in the Daily Cinema, Mr. Terry is quoted as saying that the N.F.F.C. owns and controls British Lion, but that in future it might release it into private hands if suitable purchasers could be found.
That is for the future. At present, there is no intention to make any changes. Perhaps Mr. Terry was misquoted by the newspaper. If so, I beg his pardon, but I have taken care to check the reference. Mr. Terry said:
We have not asked for resignations.
In The Times of 31st December Mr Terry was quoted as saying:
Negotiations with Mr. Box are well advanced.
It is very difficult to reconcile what Mr. Terry said then with what my right hon. Friend said this afternoon. If I am asked to choose between one and the other, I prefer my right hon. Friend every time, but that surely underlines why it is difficult to have confidence in Mr. Terry.
On 31st December the chairman said that Ministerial approval for the sale had been given some time ago. It was not clear whether he meant the sale to Mr. Sydney Box, the opening of negotiations with him or of the company being sold. We come to Sir Nutcombe Hume. On 1st January, he said:
We feel that of any available purchasers Mr. Box is probably one of the best.
It is very difficult to ask my right hon. Friend to comment on that, but can he imagine that Mr. John Terry is able to make an unbiased judgment in giving him advice after that has been said? I shall not quote from The Times about strong indications that the sale of British Lion to Mr. Sydney Box was an accomplished fact, but perhaps I may

give one more illustration to show why it is difficult to have confidence in the present N.F.S.C.
On 2nd January, Sir Nutcombe Hume stated that a few weeks ago he had not even heard of Mr. Box and there was no reason in the world why he or anyone else should be favoured. Yet, as hon. Members who follow the affairs of the film industry know, the minutes of evidence taken before the Public Accounts Committee on 20th May, 1958, show that Sir Nutcombe Hume mentioned Mr. Sydney Box by name. He was asked a question about the people who purchased this company and whether they were making a success of it. He replied: "That is Sydney Box." As far back as 1958 is a considerably longer time than "a few weeks ago".
I have countless quotations which could be produced to show the extraordinary state of muddle and equivocation which has been produced on the part of the N.F.F.C. and which illustrate why everyone in the industry whom I can find has lost confidence in the present management. Consequently, I say to my right hon. Friend that the important thing in this matter is that he should make up his own mind at an early stage. Having laid down his criteria—and I have no quarrel with the criteria—I think that the principal criterion is that those who are chosen to be the new owners of British Lion should command the respect and confidence of the independent British producers. That overrides all else.
The Federation of British Film Makers has put its views to my right hon. Friend, and has given him certain criteria by which he could judge whether or not persons had that confidence. The conditions have only been published today, and all I would ask of my right hon. Friend is that there should be sufficient time to allow applicants to get their forces together. It would be derisory, for example, to seek to come to a decision in a fortnight. Mr. Sidney Box may have known a great deal in advance of others—we do not know—but others have since come into the field. We have the conditions of sale only today and, if we are to be fair to everyone, rather more than a fortnight is needed. I think that a month would be fair.
That having been done, I would ask my right hon. Friend to avoid being put


in the position of having, as it were, to rubber stamp a recommendation given to him. The decision should be matte genuinely by himself. He should not get into a position when the deed would be practically tied up, the N.F.F.C. morally bound to someone, and my right hon. Friend then having to turn it down.
The future of the industry is very greatly bound up with this particular independent distributor. It is the last one left and, if it goes, or loses its quality and its present determination and competitive spirit, it will be a bad day for the industry, and the industry would rue it in the long run.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I agree with the final statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and with his wish to preserve the robust independence of British Lion. That has been the one concern of this House all along, and it has cut right across the discussion of the doctrinaire reasons for the Government's wish to dispose of their holding in British Lion and the wish of those on this side that they should retain it. At one time, it seemed that the independence would not be preserved, but the conditions given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade this evening have been welcomed on all sides as a step towards safeguarding the independence of British Lion. We should all like some little time to examine those conditions in detail before commenting on them.
I welcome the appointment of a director to the board of British Lion. It is very important that we should know who he is likely to be, because the appointment will not be made by the President of the Board of Trade but by the board of the National Film Finance Corporation and the nominee on the board of British Lion might well be Mr. John Terry, of whom we have heard so much this evening.
The special share that the N.F.F.C. will hold will give the Corporation the right to veto certain decisions of the board of British Lion and will meet certain eventualities that might arise, but will these rights be written into the articles of British Lion? If the N.F.F.C. holds only this one share, what is to stop

the board of British Lion later altering its articles so as to remove these safeguards? We should be grateful for an answer to these points.
Without going back to the first reel, so to speak, I want to set right one or two matters of the history of the affair which I do not think have been properly explored. In his statement on 16th January, the right hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Box's first approach to the N.F.F.C. was on 20th September, 1963, and it was not until 29th November that Mr. Kingsley, the managing director of British Lion, was told that after the first option had been exercised by the N.F.F.C. it was the intention to sell off British Lion to a suitable purchaser, subject to the right hon. Gentleman's agreement.
The British Lion directors did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to this sale, in spite of the officially announced Government policy to that effect. They had two very good reasons for not believing it, which were explained by the Boultings in an article which they wrote in the Spectator on 10th January. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, had vetoed a similar attempt in, I think, late 1960. Secondly, the company was now earning very substantial profits, and was paying dividends on the 50 per cent. of the equity owned by the Corporation.
The discussion of the option arrangements is a rather important point. In his staemen on 16th January, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Corporation had informed him that it was
… left in no doubt … that Mr. Kingsley and his colleagues would neither exercise their second option to buy the Company nor continue the option arrangements on the same basis for a further period".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th January, 1964; Vol. 687, c. 424.]
All the time in their minds was the original option arrangement, no doubt, but this was never adhered to because, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the two weeks which they were finally offered was not the period provided for in the agreement. So what the right hon. Gentleman said was not strictly true, because the situation in which the Government having become the 100 per cent. holder of the equity, would decide to sell it off to some private interests was never put to Mr. Kingsley and his colleagues till late in November.
They were very surprised to learn on 13th December that the Government had given permission for the sale of British Lion and that they were offered an option then to buy it themselves within two weeks. It could not possibly have been intended that this offer should be taken seriously at all.
I remind the House that all these negotiations had been taking place behind closed doors, in spite of what is now generally recognised to have been their crucial importance for the whole British film industry. This is the way—one must say it—the party opposite likes to do things. It is the same with the nuclear power industry or the recent upheavals in B.O.A.C. Everything must be done behind closed doors, the idea being to tell the public and the House as little as one can possibly get away with, even though substantial sums of Government money are involved.
Fortunately, in this case, the directors of British Lion refused to be good boys and keep quiet. They insisted that a statement be issued, and this statement happened to come the day before the Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) just before Christmas. I can confirm what the hon. Lady said. If it had not been for that debate and the statement the directors insisted on being issued the previous evening, we should never have known anything about all this. By now, British Lion would have been safely in the hands of Mr. Sydney Box and his anonymous syndicate, who, in their turn, would have been busily engaged in drafting agreements with Rank and A.B.C. in order to remove all competition from the British film industry.

Mr. Heath: indicated dissent.

Mr. Lubbock: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Has he read what was said in the Observer of 5th January:
Box's plan is to approach the moguls of the Rank and A.B.C. circuits with script, stars and budget all tied up, seeking a tentative date for showing".
The next bit is in quotation marks, coming from Mr. Box himself:
'If I have ten films a year, I should like to give five to one and five to the other'
What kind of competition is that?
Of course, no one would have known anything about these negotiations. No one would have been able to demand the assurances which were given by the Parliamentary Secretary in the debate on 20th December, repeated in the hon. Gentleman's statement on 16th January, and now expanded this evening.
There is no doubt whatever in my mind that this whole deal would have been pushed through during the Christmas Recess and we should have been presented with a fait accompli on our return. The right hon. Gentleman may smile at that, but Mr. Box himself gave the game away when he told the Daily Herald on 3rd January:
My accountants have been viewing the books since Tuesday, and if everything is O.K. by Monday, I will put the money down".
He thought that the whole thing would go through and that Parliament had nothing more to say. So did Mr. Terry, according to the quotation which I have already read to the House—
The situation at present is that we have made an offer to Mr. Sydney Box's group and, unless and until these negotiations fail, we are not offering the business elsewhere.
Mr. Terry and Mr. Box were at one in thinking that the whole thing was a fait accompli.
It is quite shocking that an attempt should have been made to push through this deal behind our backs, in a matter of such grave public importance. It was also bad business. This must have become obvious by now. There was only one contender in the field at one time. The right hon. Gentleman said that it appeared that there was only one satisfactory bidder, whereas now there are no less than seven. According to the right hon. Gentleman in his statement on 16th January, the Government claim that they attach
the greatest weight to the ability of the purchasing group to provide the necessary financial strength and skill in management and to maintain its independence".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th January, 1964; Vol. 687, c. 418.]
If nobody had been told of the Government's intention to dispose of their 100 per cent. holding in British Lion, after acquiring the 50 per cent. holding of the directors, how could there have been any competition in the bidding and how could these factors which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned have been brought into the matter at all?
It has been said that Mr. Box came forward and offered to negotiate as early as September and that none of the other seven groups did so, although they would have been free to make an offer similar to that of Mr. Box to negotiate with the National Film Finance Corporation. That ignores the fact that if anybody had got as far as reading the option agreement he would certainly have been led to think that the Government would take only 100 per cent. control as a matter of deliberate policy to extend their holding permanently. That certainly was the impression given to the five directors when the agreement was signed. That was why the Government wanted the first option clause to be included in the contract.
If the Government had not decided to exercise their first option, there would have been a period of six months within which the directors could have tried to raise the finance for them, in turn, to buy out the Government's 50 per cent. holding. The other six contenders certainly would not have approached the Corporation in September, because they would have imagined that there would be at least another nine months before the situation came to a head. It is probable that the initiative did not come from Mr. Box in September and that this is the explanation why there was only one contender.
It is natural to suppose that someone who was privy to the intentions of the National Film Finance Corporation put Mr. Box up to making his approach over a lunch-table some time in September. If that is true, it is no wonder that Mr. Box appeared to be the only suitable purchaser until a public announcement was made, when the number rapidly rose to eight, since when it has fallen back to seven. This proves that it' the Government had been determined to bear these factors in mind in returning British Lion to private ownership, the right course would have been for them to make a public announcement to that effect, listing the qualifications which an applicant would be expected to have, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned on 16th January, and then inviting bidders to come forward.
As long as there is this monopolistic structure in the industry, it would be

a good thing for the Government to maintain a large holding in British Lion. It was a pity that the promised legislation to deal with a monopoly in the film industry did not come before the proposed sale. I am glad to have at least the partial consolation of knowing the important powers which are to be attached to the one share which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. We know, however, that for doctrinaire reasons it has been decided to pull out. Our task is at least to try to safeguard the future independence of British Lion. The viability and independence of the company depends ultimately upon its falling into the right hands.
I wish for two minutes to consider the contenders. First, there is the Box group, none of the members of which have been announced, apart from Lord Willis, who must be something of an embarrassment to the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] No sooner had he been translated from Dock Green to the House of Lords than he bit the hand that put the coronet on his head. The coyness of Mr. Box in revealing the other members of his group results from the fact that he has no associates other than his own family, and all his family are under contract to one or other of the big combines. It would, therefore, be embarrassing for him to have to reveal this.
If one considered Mr. Box by himself, one would not feel at all happy about entrusting British Lion's future to him. He was at one time in charge of Rank film production for four years and at the end of it the studios were closed, hundreds of people were thrown out of work and a good deal of money was lost. Therefore, in considering the financial strength and the technical expertise which these groups bring to bear, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take that point into account. Then there is the John Woolf-Sam Spiegel-Leslie Grade group. Sam Spiegel is a substantial shareholder in Columbia Pictures, an American company with an exclusive trading agreement with the Rank Organisation.
Leslie Grade and his brother operated Elstree Film Distributors which has an exclusive agreement with the A.B.C. circuit. It does not appear, therefore, that this group would remain generally


independent of the Rank-A.B.C. axis any more than the Box group would do. Finally, there is the Michael Balcon group. It must be generally agreed that this is the most talented. It includes John Osborne and Tony Richardson who made films like Tom Jones and "Saturday Night and Sunday Morning" and it includes people who can be trusted to keep to the spirit as well as the letter of any undertakings they give.
If the Government have absolutely made up their mind that their holding in British Lion should be sold, it should be to these people rather than to Sydney Box and Sam Spiegel. I have dealt only with the serious contenders. I do not think that the other four could be considered as such. Whatever the decision may be, this crisis is only an episode in the long and sorry history of the Government's refusal to deal with this problem of monopoly in the film indstry. We can account for this tenderness towards the Rank-A.B.C. octopus only by reminding ourselves that the Tory Party is the party of big business and it does not really believe in the competition to which sometimes it pays lip-service.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: Surely the hon. Member heard the speech of my right hon. Friend. This is an exact reversal of what he said.

Mr. Lubbock: Not at all. The right hon. Gentleman did not demonstrate in his speech that the one share which the Government will hold in British Lion will ensure future competition within the industry. It is true that we have been promised legislation later this year. It has not yet appeared and it should have preceded any decision to dispose of the Government's shareholding indirectly in British Lion through the N.F.F.C.
The decline in cinema audiences continues in Britain because here the fate of a film is settled not by the public but by a few bookers of the two circuits who sit in private viewing theatres before the film reaches the public. It is common knowledge that the film "Tom Jones," which has been an outstanding success at the box office, was turned down by the bookers when first shown

to them. Apparently the same applies to "Dr. Strangelove" which last week had outstandingly enthusiastic reviews. Not only is the method of selecting the films to be shown unlikely to pick on those which will have the greatest appeal to the public, but the rigidity of the booking system is well calculated to drive audiences away from the cinemas. Nothing that we have heard tonight will do anything to cope with this situation. Unless the Government act quickly to break up the Rank and A.B.C. empires there is a great danger that the film industry in this country will expire.

9.38 p.m.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: In the few minutes left before the Government reply, I should like to say that many of my hon. Friends take an entirely different view about my right hon. Friend's plans and determination to sell the Government interest in British Lion. We support what he has set out to do. We welcome his assurance that it is the intention to keep it British-controlled and also to keep it independent.
It is not perhaps without significance that during the whole of the debate, until we heard the speech of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), only one name of an individual director of the various groups has been put forward. I had no views on this matter until I came here tonight, but I noticed throughout the debate that among those who do not want to see the holding sold, or are determined to give it to those self-confessed reluctant buyers the Boultings, there has obviously been a persistent policy of denigration of Mr. Sydney Box in nine out of ten speeches.
I am not associated with any of these organisations in any shape or form, but so far as I can see, and from reading the newspapers, it seems to me that here is a gentleman who had the initiative, knowing it was the Government's intention to sell, to put in an offer, and to go to the N.F.F.C. and say he would negotiate. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington, my colleague—I had better say, my political neighbour, rather than my colleague—complained bitterly that the terms offered and the negotiations were not immediately made public. Well, did


anyone ever go out to buy a business and tell all his business competitors what the offer was?

Sir Cyril Osborne: That is how the Liberals work.

Mr. Lubbock: rose—

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: With great respect, I cannot give way.

Mr. Lubbock: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member had a fair innings and beat me into the debate, and I promised to sit down soon, because there are two speakers to wind up the debate.
If the hon. Member had studied some of the publications as well as I have he would have known that, quite apart from Mr. Box and apart from Lord Willis, there is Lord Archibald, with a long and distinguished career in the film industry, on the proposed board. Then there is the son of a very old, one-time friend of mine, whose early career was in the film industry, the late Colonel Bromhead; his son, Michael Bromhead, is also one of the directors. They are all people with long and distinguished careers in the film industry.
We have heard so much denigration centred so specifically upon one person tonight. Although I did not intend to mention anyone, I think it only fair that someone ought to get up and say that Mr. Sydney Box has had a long and distinguished career in the film industry and great experience of it.
It is now up to my right hon. Friend, who has shown his mind quite plainly from the undertaking he has given tonight. There were times when speakers opposite seemed to me not to have listened to any of the statements my right hon. Friend has made on this matter, but my right hon. Friend has shown that he is determined to keep this organisation independent.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said something about these tame people on the various boards. One can mention people of the Wolfson type and of the Spiegel type and of the John Bloom

type. One can call these gentlemen many things, but no one could call them tame.
What is important, I am sure, to all of us in this House is what my right hon. Friend has said about the intentions. I only got four of them down, because of the speed at which he spoke, but he said that there should be no voluntary liquidation, no sale of the controlling holding without the Government being able to prevent its going to a monopoly; and while I am not going into the details as accurately as he did, he also outlined that there would be an assurance—and I think that this is tremendously important—that there would be no sale of the area or the space at Shepperton. I think that this is extremely important to the industry and something which will be welcomed by people who hold particularly strong ideas about this, because they are extremely concerned that those employed in the industry and using the studios should be encouraged to the greatest possible extent.
I do not believe that any of the groups has any lack of money, and so I think that this boils down to the question: who is capable of doing the job? This is an experienced team of directors, and they are all experienced in films, and they are prepared to guarantee independence, and they will give a stronger and even more powerful future to British Lion.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The Secretary of State is rather difficult to understand these days. When it comes to the retail trade he is a convert to the most ruthless competition, without restraint and regardless of consequences. But when we come to the film industry, where we are really faced with a near monopoly, he is extremely timid, and tiptoes cautiously this way and that under pressure from public opinion.
The right hon. Gentleman, thanks to the vigilance of the House, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) in particular, has certainly moved a good distance since 20th December. We are now to have a special single shareholding, a Government director and a number of assurances. I can only tell the right hon.


Gentleman that if he expects us to believe that that was the Government's policy on 20th December, his Parliamentary Secretary was grossly misleading the House that day.
I even asked the Parliamentary Secretary straight that day whether he would give an assurance that these shares would not be sold to Rank or A.B.C., but he refused to give even that assurance. Therefore, I do not believe that he was misleading us. I believe that the Secretary of State has very extensively altered his policy.
We are now to have, if I understand the right hon. Gentleman aright, a special single share, owned by the N.F.F.C., retained in British Lion, and I also understand from him that there will be a condition attached to that by which—I am not sure whether I am right, and this is important—neither the shares nor the assets of the company, in effect, can be sold by the new owners without the consent of not just the N.F.F.C., I hope, but of the Board of Trade. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is true?
There is to be one Government director. We should also like to know for certain—we have not yet had it made clear—that the director will be selected and approved not just by the N.F.F.C., but by the right hon. Gentleman and the Board of Trade as well. That would take us some way.
I must say that if the right hon. Gentleman admits, in effect, the case for some Government control and in the last resort a veto on future sales and activities of the company and, therefore, the need for an independent force in the industry, why does he refuse to go the whole way and retain the present Government ownership of the shares? After all, it is the universal view—not just of us here, but of almost every school of thought in the industry—that as a pure matter of fact it is likely to be easier for British Lion to stand up as an independent third force, or whatever it is called, in the industry separate from the two circuits, both for production and distribution, if there is substantial public ownership in it.
That is not our view; it is a question of fact. That view is held not merely by the unions, but by a whole number of

associations in the industry. Indeed, if one puts it as a point of fact even to the leaders of the two circuits themselves they admit that they would be less likely, if they had any inclination, to bully or try to cabin and confine British Lion if the Government stood behind it.
If that is the case, if that is the opinion in the industry as a matter of fact, and the right hon. Gentleman is contesting that, he is putting his own opinion—his familiarity with the industry so far is fairly slight—against all those interested in the industry. But if that opinion is right and if the right hon. Gentleman really has the objective of maintaining British Lion as an independent force, what are his reasons for wanting to sell the other shares at all? I do not believe that he has made out any case on this point, except the original doctrinaire intention of the Government to get rid of public ownership of the shares regardless of the effects and consequences.
I think that, having come this way and admitted the substance of the argument, the right hon. Gentleman might have had the courage this time to put his doctrinaire ideas beside him and accept what is obviously the best solution. Unless he is prepared to do that, we still cannot accept the remedy which he is putting before the House tonight.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Heath: In this last remark the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has indicated quite clearly that he is actuated by doctrinaire considerations. He is not prepared to consider the proposals which I have put before the House on their merits, but is merely wiping them aside and dividing the House on the continued public ownership of the British Lion Company. That is the sole issue on which he is dividing the House, and not on the part which the Government play in helping the film industry.
The right hon. Member said that if we are to have this measure of control, if one likes to use that word, why should we not keep the whole of British Lion in public hands and publicly financed? The answer is: because we believe, as I have said, that, in this developing situation in which there are still very considerable opportunities for a company


of this kind and for the film industry, it is right that private enterprise and initiative should be used within the context of the firm being retained as a third force in the British film industry and to support British independent production and distribution. We therefore have the framework in which it can operate and we would leave the rest of the intiative and enterprise of the group which will secure the company as a result of the proposals which I have outlined. That is a very strong and firm reason why this arrangement should be made and one which we have put before the House tonight.
I have been asked a number of questions which which I should like to deal, but, first. I wish to deal with the point of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North that this is a sudden conversion. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said in the Adjournment debate on 20th December that the purchaser would give an assurance about the facilities which the company now makes available, and so on, and that this was at that time a condition of sale. What I have outlined today are the specific arrangements for that condition of sale. That is what has been worked out in the past weeks since my hon. Friend spoke in the Adjournment debate. He made it clear at the beginning that this was a condition of sale and that British Lion should remain a third force in the interests of the independent producers.
Therefore, this miasma of suspicion and innuendo which has been created by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) in his speech about the way in which this matter has been handled is untrue, and demonstrably untrue from what my hon. Friend said during the Adjournment debate. He does not help his friends in the film industry or the film industry itself by making speeches of that kind.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) asked me to say quite clearly that there was no commitment to any would-be purchaser of British Lion. I can say that categorically to the House. For my part, there is no commitment on behalf of the Government and I understand that there is no commitment on behalf of the N.F.F.C. This can be illustrated by the fact that Mr. Box has not yet made any

formal offer to the N.F.F.C. for the British Lion Company. I therefore hope that the hon. Member will accept that there is no commitment to any particular group concerning this sale.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Will my right hon. Friend or the N.F.F.C. be the decisive factor? Secondly, what are the criteria of choice which will be uppermost as the matters of principle affecting his judgment?

Mr. Heath: I think that I described that specifically and clearly in my opening speech. However, the Corporation must judge on the character of the group in carrying out the policy for which it will give an assurance and also on the financial resources of the group not only for the purchase but for the operation of the company in accordance with the assurance which it has given. Those seem to me to be very clear criteria by which the judgment must be made about which would best operate the company in the way that we want it to be operated.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) said that he was quite convinced that there were concealed assets. What happened was that there was an independent valuation by an accountant of the greatest integrity which was accepted by the N.F.F.C. and by the five directors of British Lion, and on that decision rested the valuation of their own holding in the company. I do not see how one can do better than to have an independent valuation of all the resource; which is accepted by both the N.F.F.C. for its holding and by the five directors for their holding. So I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue this matter further in suggesting that there are some hidden assets which either the Corporation, or the five directors or the Government are trying to write off.
The hon. Member for Orpington asked about special shares and how they could be maintained. The special shares will be a whole issue of a class of shares and therefore unable to be withdrawn without the owners' consent. That position will be safeguarded in the articles from the point of view of the future of British Lion.
A number of questions concerned the monopoly situation in the industry. I


give an assurance that we will come to the speediest consideration of the report of the Films Council when it is received. But, of course, we must have an opportunity to examine it carefully and consider the points made by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and other hon. Members.
It is perfectly true that many of these problems, if they can be substantiated, arise from the fact of the two great operators in the industry and not from the question of the ownership of British Lion. The problems are there whether British Lion is partly or wholly owned by the Government or entirely owned by private enterprise. What is at issue is the question of whether, when it is owned by private enterprise, it can remain an independent force. That is what we have been discussing tonight and we have given an assurance that it will remain an independent force.

Mr. Jay: Is it clear that these shares will not be disposed of without the permission of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Heath: I gave a specific assurance that there will be a right of veto on the disposal of the undertaking, and this, of course, will be in the hands of the directors of the Corporation. Ob-

the Corporation reports to the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman knows that arrangement.

The question of artistic merit of British films was raised. Of course I have been fully concerned about the artistic achievements of the industry. Many of those who came to see me discussed this in detail together with methods of maintaining the integrity of the industry. I believe that it is of vital importance.

Most hon. Members who know me also know that I have certain specific interests in the arts, music and painting. I have personally great concern and consideration for the artistic aspect of British films and for those who work in the industry. That is why we are so anxious that they should be helped through the Corporation and the maintenance of British Lion as an independent force. I believe that what we propose is the best way of helping them and I hope that the House will accept that we are acting in the best interests of the industry as a whole.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 301.

Division No. 19.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)


Ainsley, William
Chapman, Donald
Forman, J. C.


Albu, Austen
Cliffe, Michael
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Collick, Percy
Galpern, Sir Myer


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Ginsburg, David


Bacon, Miss Alice
Cronin, John
Gourlay, Harry


Baird, John
Crosland, Anthony
Greenwood, Anthony


Barnett, Guy
Crossman, R. H. S.
Grey, Charles


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Beaney, Alan
Darling, George
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)


Bence, Cyril
Davies Harold (Leek)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gunter, Ray


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Benson, Sir George
Deer, George
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Blackburn, F.
Delargy, Hugh
Hannan, William


Blyton, William
Diamond, John
Harper, Joseph


Boardman, H.
Dodds, Norman
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Doig, Peter
Hayman, F. H.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Driberg, Tom
Healey, Denis


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)


Boyden, James
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Edelman, Maurice
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Bradley, Tom
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hilton, A. V.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Holman, Percy


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Houghton, Douglas


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Evans, Albert
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fernyhough, E.
Howie, W. (Luton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Finch, Harold
Hoy, James H.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fitch, Alan
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Callaghan, James
Fletcher, Eric
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Carmichael, Neil
Foley, Maurice
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)




Hunter, A. E.
Mitchison, G. R.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Monslow, Walter
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Moody, A. S.
Small, William


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Irving Sydney (Dartford)
Morris, John
Snow, Julian


Janner, Sir Barnett
Moyle, Arthur
Scrensen, R. W.


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Neal, Harold
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Jeger, George
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Steele, Thomas


Johnson, Carol (Lawisham, S.)
Oliver, G. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
O'Malley, B. K.
Stonehouse, John


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Gram, A. E.
Stones, William


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Oswald, Thomas
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Owen, Will
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Padley, W. E.
Swain, Thomas


Kelley, Richard
Paget, R. T.
Swingler, Stephen


Kenyon, Clifford
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Symonds, J. B.


King, Dr. Horace
Pargiter, G. A.
Taverne, D.


Lawson, George
Parker, John
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ledger, Ron
Parkin, B. T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pavitt, Laurence
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Peart, Frederick
Thornton, Ernest


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Pentland, Norman
Thorpe, Jeremy


Lipton, Marcus
Popplewell, Ernest
Tomney, Frank


Loughlin, Charles
Prentice, R. E.
Wade, Donald


Lubbock, Eric
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wainwright, Edwin


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Probert, Arthur
Warbey, William


McBride, N.
Proctor, W. T.
Weitzman, David


MacColl, James
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


MacDermot, Niall
Randall, Harry
White, Mrs. Eirene


McInnes, James
Rankin, John
Whitlock, William


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Redhead, E. C.
Wigg, George


Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Ress, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


McLeavy, Frank
Reid, William
Willey, Frederick


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Reynolds, G. W.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rhodes, H.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mahon, Simon
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Manuel, Archie
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Woof, Robert


Mapp, Charles
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Marsh, Richard
Rodgers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Mason, Roy
Ross, William
Zilliacus, K.


Mayhew, Christopher
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)



Mellish, R. J.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mendelson, J. J.
Silkin, John
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Millan, Bruce
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Mr. McCann.


Milne, Edward
Skeffington, Arthur





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Brewis, John
Cunningham, Sir Knox


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt., Col-Sir Walter
Curran, Charles


Allason, James
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Currie, G. B. H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Anderson, D. C.
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Dance, James


Arbuthnot, John
Bryan, Paul
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Buck, Antony
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.


Atkins, Humphrey
Bullard, Denys
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Balniel, Lord
Burden, F. A.
Doughty, Charles


Barlow, Sir John
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec


Barter, John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Drayson, G. B.


Batsford, Brian
Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Milcham)
du Cann, Edward


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cary, Sir Robert
Duncan, Sir James


Bell, Ronald
Channon, H. P. G.
Duthie, Sir William (Banff)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Eden, Sir John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Berkeley, Humphry
Cleaver, Leonard
Elliot, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Cole, Norman
Emery, Peter


Bidgood, John C.
Cooke, Robert
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Biffen, John
Cooper, A. E.
Errington, Sir Eric


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Bingham, R. M.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Cordle, John
Farr, John


Bishop, F. P.
Corfield, F. V.
Fell, Anthony


Black, Sir Cyril
Costain, A. P.
Fisher, Nigel


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Coulson, Michael
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bourne-Arton, A.
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Foster, Sir John


Box, Donald
Craddeck, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Crawley, A'dan
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Braine, Bernard
Critchley, Julian
Freeth, Denzil







Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Gammans, Lady
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Robinson, Rt., Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Gardner, Edward
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Gibson-Watt, David
Litchfield, Capt. John
Roots, William


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Survey)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Longbottom, Charles
Sharples, Richard


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Loveys, Walter H.
Shaw, M.


Goodhart, Philip
Lucas-Sir Jocelyn
Shepherd, William


Goodhew, Victor
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gough, Frederick
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Gower, Raymond
McLaren, Martin
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Grant-Ferris, R.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Speir, Rupert


Green, Alan
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stainton, Keith


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Gurden, Harold
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hall, John (Wycombe)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Steward, Herold (Stockport, S.)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maddan, Martin
Stodart, J. A.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Maginnis, John E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maitland, Sir John
Storey, Sir Samuel


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Studholme, Sir Henry


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Summers, Sir Spencer


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Talbot John E.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Marten, Neil
Tapsell, Peter


Harvie, Anderson, Miss
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Taylor, Edwind (Bolton, E.)


Hastings, Stephen
Matthews, Gorden (Meriden)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Mawby, Ray
Teeling, Sir William


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Temple, John M.


Hendry, Forbes
Mills, Stratton
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hiley, Joseph
Montgomery, Fergus
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Morgan, William
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Neave, Airey
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Hocking, Philip N.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hogg, Rt-Hon. Quintin
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Holland, Philip
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Turner, Colin


Hollingworth, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hopkins, Alan
Osbern, John (Hallam)
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hornby, R. P.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Partridge E.
Wader, David


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Walker, Peter


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Peel, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Iremonger, T. L.
Peytown, John
Wall, Patrick


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Ward, Dame Irene


James, David
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Jennings, J. C.
Pitman, Sir James
Webster, David


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Cralisle)
Pitt, Dame Edith
Whitelaw, William


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pounder, Rafton
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Johnson, Smith, Geoffrey
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Prior, J. M. L.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Wise, A. R.


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wolrige-Gorden, Patrick


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pym, Francis
Word, Rt. Hon. Richard


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Kershaw, Anthony
Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James
Woodnutt, Mark


Kimball, Marcus
Rawlinson, Sir Peter
Woollam, John


Kitson, Timothy
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Worsley, Marcus


Lagden, Godfrey
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Lambtron, Viscount
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)



Langford-Holt, Sir John
Renton, Rt. Hon. David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Leather, Sir Edwin
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. MacArthur.

Orders of the Day — MRS. SEARLE, CARDIFF (ARREST)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Hugh Rees.]

10.9 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I wish to bring to the attention of the House a serious miscarriage of justice which I believe has been experienced by one of my constituents. I regard this House as the custodian of the liberty of every subject of the realm. I believe it to be the protector of individual rights and that on both sides of the House right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are equally concerned when an injustice has been committed. An injustice to one is an injustice to all. I therefore seek the intervention of the Home Office in the disturbing case involving Mrs. Searle, of Loftus Street, Cardiff and I have sent details to the Home Office.
In August, 1962, Mrs. Searle was fined £3 for exceeding the speed limit and she was told that her licence would be endorsed. She was fined at Cowbridge Magistrates' Court. This was her first offence. She had never been in a police court before. She visited Canton Police Station, at Cardiff, and asked whether she could pay her fine. She was told that she must pay it in the area where she had been fined. Cowbridge is about eight miles from Cardiff. So my constituent did the sensible thing. She obtained a recorded delivery letter and sent the money—this was her only mistake—and the licence together. There is no dispute about the recorded delivery.
The licence was returned to Mrs. Searle and on it was written—I have seen it—"Fined £3, licence endorsed". To her, this was a receipt. She had never had to pay a fine before. I must confess that I should have accepted a licence so written on and endorsed as a normal receipt. Nothing more was heard of this case and she was not surprised. She had paid the fine and her conscience was clear. But on Saturday, 11th January, 1964, three officers, in a police car, went to her home in Loftus Street to arrest Mrs. Searle for the non-payment of the fine.
When she told an officer that she had paid the fine, he, very wisely, accepted her explanation and went away. When

Mr. Searle, who is a railwayman, came home and heard that the police had been to his house, his reaction was the same as that of any other innocent man. He advised his wife to call at Cowbridge Police Station and tell them they must not do this sort of thing and that she had paid the fine.
Mrs. Searle called at Cowbridge Police Station to protest that the police had been to her home. To her dismay and astonishment, she was arrested. She was submitted to the humiliation of having the contents of her handbag tipped out and all the items recorded. I understand that a policewoman searched her as if she were a dangerous woman. She was put on £5 bail to appear at the Cow-bridge Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 21st January.
Mrs. Searle's reaction was that of an entirely innocent person. She took two courses of action. She went to the South Wales Echo and told her story because she was so indignant. I wish to pay a tribute to the South Wales Echo for the way in which a very serious miscarriage of justice has been brought to light. Mrs. Searle also wrote to me and I visited her home. Hers is a family of three. They never buy anything on hire purchase. They will buy only what they can pay for They told me that they would not have a television set until they had saved the £73 to pay for it. I say that only to tell the House and the Minister the sort of people with whom we are dealing.
I took immediate action; experience has taught me that it is always wise if we can settle these matters locally so to do. I called at Canton Police Station and was advised that it was nothing to do with them and that it was wiser to contact the Glamorgan County Constabulary. I contacted a very high-ranking officer in the Glamorgan County Constabulary. He is a man who is most highly respected and in whose integrity I have absolute trust, a man who has the trust both of the force and of the public. He told me that he had looked at the fines book and opposite Mrs. Searle's name had been written in pencil, "Fine paid", but that it had subsequently been crossed out and the officer who dealt with this case had, unfortunately, since died.
I am quite willing to give the name of this high-ranking police officer to the


Minister, but which I do not care to give it to the House as I do not think it essential. When I put to him that this would undoubtedly clear Mrs. Searle when the case came to court, he quite agreed. I may have misunderstood him, but I understood from him that the police would give such evidence when the case was raised in court next day. I obtained permission from him to call on Mrs. Searle and to tell her that she need not worry; she was bound to be cleared next day when the matter came up in court. I went to her and told her so in confidence.
Imagine how surprised and dismayed I was when, on 21st January, as soon as I came out of a Standing Committee. I had a telephone call from the South Wales Echo to tell me what had happened at Cowbridge Magistrates' Court. The magistrates' clerk had done most of the talking. The magistrates had not been informed that "Fine paid" had been written opposite Mrs. Searle's name and subsequently crossed out. The fines book was not produced. I am a great believer that in a magistrates' court the magistrates should be in charge. Clerks should be there to give advice when they are asked for it, particularly when a magistrates' clerk is involved as he was in this case. I think it most unfortunate that he should have said to Mrs. Searle in the court:
The only people concerned in this are yourself, ourselves"—
linking himself with the bench—
and the Home Office".
He forgot the public, he forgot the Press and he forgot this House. When any person comes before a court in this land it is not only that person who is concerned, but the public, too, which has a right to see that justice is done and is seen to be done. Mrs. Searle, when she came out of the court, was interviewed by the Press. I quote from the South Wales Echo of 21st January:
Weeping, she said, 'I was hoping they would clear my name today. I do not know what I shall do now. It is the first time I have been in a court. It was a terrible experience.'
I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department here to reply to the debate. I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I ask her why it is

that 18 months elapsed from the time when Mrs. Searle had her licence back and when she says she paid before the police were at her door? She had no warning notice of any sort. This was made clear in the court on 21st January. There were people in the court that day for not paying fines six months before, but this was 18 months before.
Another serious aspect of the case is that the magistrates had on the paper before them that she had been fined in August, 1963. When Mrs. Searle said, "No, 1962", it had to be altered because the clerk had to confirm that Mrs. Searle was right, that it was not six months but 18 months since the offence had taken place. Since then, there have been surprising developments. I have had two letters from people who have suffered identical experience at the same magistrates' court. I have the letters with me and I am prepared to give them to the Under-Secretary for her to read when she is considering the request I make to her tonight.
It is a cardinal principle of British justice that people are presumed innocent until they are proved guilty. In this case, the benefit of the indisputable doubt about the entry being in the book and about the recorded delivery was not given to Mrs. Searle. I want to know why the fines book was not produced before the magistrates. Why was all the evidence not put before them? Why did the clerk play such an active part in the proceedings since his department is responsible for collecting fines, although I understand that the officer responsible has since died? I make no more serious charge than incompetence and mistakes in the office. They are human and I do not wish to go further, but I believe that it would be a grievous thing to let this woman suffer the burning sense of injustice which she has at present.
I hope that the Home Office will not feel I have wasted its time by raising this question. I believe, and I have done my best to do justice to it, that we have the happiness of a family at stake here, where a grave injustice has been done to a mother. We all know the unhappiness of people when police call at their homes and those are respectable homes. In this case, I believe that justice demands a recommendation of


the Queen's pardon and that this woman's name should be cleared.
I shall not rest until justice is done and Mrs. Searle is cleared of the dishonesty which will shadow her until a pardon is granted.

10.23 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Mervyn Pike): This is a very unhappy case and I am sure that we are all grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) for bringing it forward, and for the manner in which he has approached it.
As the House knows, the question whether a fine has or has not been paid is a matter for the court, but as the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, my right hon. Friend had inquiries made from the Clerk to the Cowbridge Justices and the Chief Constable. The facts, as they have been reported to us, are as follows.
On 7th August, 1962 Mrs. Searle was fined £3 in the Cowbridge Magistrates' Court for a speeding offence and her licence was ordered to be endorsed. Mrs. Searle had availed herself of the procedure of sending a written plea of guilty, so she did not appear at the hearing. She was duly given notice of the fine, and, as she had not sent her licence to the court, she was also informed that this was required for endorsement.
On or about 16th August, Mrs. Searle sent her licence by recorded delivery post; it was endorsed and sent back to her.
In October, 1963, the Clerk to the Cowbridge Justices—he had been appointed in March, his predecessor having died the previous December—made arrangements for the enforcement of outstanding fines at the Cowbridge Court. The clerk is also clerk for another division and has an assistant at the Cow-bridge office. There was no entry in the official receipt books, cash books and ledger that this fine had been paid. I will deal in a moment with the hon. Member's point about the pencilled note.
The justices issued a means inquiry warrant on 9th November. The police visited Mrs. Searle on two occasions; she said she had already paid the fine, so the police did not on those occasions

execute the warrant, but sought further instructions.
On 14th January, Mrs. Searle called at the Cowbridge police station to make inquiries about the matter, and repeated that she had already paid the fine. Police officers called personally at the magistrate's clerk's office to see how the matter stood. They were told that the money had not been paid and that the warrant must be executed. Accordingly, while Mrs. Searle was still at the police station, the warrant was executed; Mrs. Searle was arrested, and bailed to appear in court on 21st January.
When Mrs. Searle appeared she stated on oath that she had paid the fine by enclosing three £1 notes with her licence when she sent it the previous year. When asked why she could not produce a receipt, she said that she regarded the endorsement on her driving licence as a receipt—and I do not think there is anything unreasonable in that. I freely admit to the House that, never having had to pay a fine myself, I would have taken the same view.
She strenuously denied any suggestion that she might have forgotten to put the notes in the envelope. The clerk to the justices stated that he had not received the money, that no receipt had been issued and that no entry appeared in the accounts. The chairman then told Mrs. Searle that she would have to pay and offered her time. Mrs. Searle decided not to ask for time and paid the money there and then rather, as she put it, than have all this trouble.
I should now like to say something about the pencilled entry to which the hon. Gentle man drew attention. The clerk reported that his assistant at Cow-bridge keeps an informal record in a notebook. This notebook is not part of the official records of the court. She keeps it merely as a matter of convenience and for quick reference.
In this notebook—written in ink, and not in pencil—were the words "licence", struck out indicating that the licence had been received and endorsed, and the word "paid". The existence of this entry was brought to the notice of the clerk before the court heard Mrs. Searle on 21st January and he questioned the assistant closely about it. Earlier, when it was decided to apply to the justices


for a warrant, this entry was very carefully scrutinised and the records thoroughly checked.
On the one hand there was this entry in the notebook; on the other hand there was no entry in any of the official books, and there was no surplus money, and no discrepancies in the accounts. The conclusion was reached that the entry in the notebook was a mistake. However, the court was not aware of the entry.
I thought it right that we should ask the clerk to the justices to tell the justices or their chairman of this entry. He has done this and all the justices concerned: that it, those who were sitting on 21st January, state that in their considered view, knowledge of it would not have affected their decision. But, as I have said, the entry in the notebook first came to the notice of the clerk on the day before the court sat to deal with Mrs. Searle's case, and he went into it the day before—

Mr. G. Thomas: He did not tell the magistrates.

Miss Pike: No. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in saying that the burden of proof that the fine had been paid rested on Mrs. Searle. His duty was to state to the court how the accounts stood—and I do not question his good faith—he decided that it was not relevant to the court's determination of the question whether the fine had been paid.
I think it would have been better if the court had been aware at the time of the notebook entry particularly since the fine had been outstanding for a great length of time. This circumstance seems to me to have made it desirable that the court should be in possession of any piece of information, however small, that seemed to have a bearing on the question.
But what concerns this House is not whether the court were right in thinking Mrs. Searle had not paid her fine or whether Mrs. Searle was right but whether a satisfactory system exists whereby the possibility of disputes of this kind is minimised. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this case because there are certain aspects of it that must obviously cause concern. The hon. Gentleman has now brought certain other cases to notice, and if, as

he says, he will supply me with further particulars, I shall certainly take them up.
The hon. Gentleman did not mention these other cases in the first instance and naturally my inquiries were directed to Mrs. Searle's case only.

Mr. G. Thomas: These cases have come to my knowledge as a result of the publicity which Mrs. Searle's case has had, but I hope that we shall hear something about them.

Miss Pike: I appreciate that, and that is why I shall be grateful when the hon. Gentleman gives me the particulars, so that we can go into the whole matter much more thoroughly. It is impossible to have a system which eliminates all possibility of dispute.
The Magistrates' Courts Rules require the clerk to the justices to give a receipt for money received by him in payment of a fine and one would think that would ordinarily be sufficient to eliminate disputes. Indeed, in ordinary commerce this is so; one proves payment by producing a receipt.
I do not think that in general any amendment of the Rules would produce an infallible result. The books of the courts are regularly audited and the possibility of error is reduced to a minimum. However, it is not enough that the Rules should provide a satisfactory system. We must be sure that there could be no proper ground for complaint about the way in which the system is operated.
There are certain features about the procedure that was adopted in this case that I should like to inquire further into—for example, the relationship between the informal record in the notebook and the official books of the court, and the organisation of the court office for the day-to-day work. It is disturbing that so long should elapse between the imposing of fines and their enforcement, because of course the longer one leaves these things the more chance there is of a dispute; in this particular case the clerk appreciates that.
In the ordinary course of examining accounts, the auditor does take up with clerks cases in which fines have remained unenforced, and I shall undertake to see whether more guidance


should be given to the clerks of magistrates' courts on the importance of not letting fines remain on the books of courts without action being taken over long periods such as happened in this case.
The hon. Gentleman naturally wants a full inquiry into this affair. I do not think that further inquiry into the facts will help us very much; I have inquired into them and given them as fully as I can to the House.
The main thing is to see that there can be no complaint that the proper procedures are not being applied, and hence, so far as possible, no occasion for disputes of this kind in the future.
The management of justices' clerks' offices is primarily for the clerk himself, but the magistrates' courts committee of the county has general functions in respect of the magistrates' courts in the county as a whole.
As I said, there are certain features of this case which seem to me to call for further inquiry, and I will take them up with the clerk. The present clerk did not take up his appointment in the division until March last year, and we all appreciate that he has possibly been working under some difficulties. I shall also take the matter up with the magistrates' courts committee, and I will inform the hon. Gentleman of the further results, and I shall also take up the other cases he mentioned.
I am certain, and I am sure that the House is, too, that Mrs. Searle throughout acted in good faith and we all

naturally regret that these disagreeable events should have happened.
We hope that the proceedings this evening will have gone some way to mitigate the distress which she has suffered. Until I have made further inquiries, I prefer not to make any comment on what took place. I do not think that that would be fair. But whether the fine was originally received or not was for the court, and it would not be right for my right hon. Friend, even if he had the power to do so, so seek to reverse the decision of the court in this case
I conclude by saying to the hon. Gentleman that I shall go thoroughly into this case on the lines which I have outlined tonight. My right hon. Friend will consider his request. I know that he would not expect me to give him a reply now. This is an unhappy case. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it, and I hope that our inquiries will go a long way to mitigate the damage which has been caused.

Mr. G. Thomas: I thank the hon. Lady very much for the understanding way in which she has replied to the debate. May I ask her whether I may look forward to the result of her further inquiries, bearing in mind my request regarding a pardon?

Miss Pike: We shall certainly look into all the matters which the hon. Gentleman has raised this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Eleven o'clock.